Allowed

Rambabu and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2022ABAIL/10657/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted anticipatory bail to applicants in a FIR involving malicious joining and attempted outrage of modesty, applying Sushila Aggarwal precedent and imposing standard conditions including appearance before trial court and non-tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each subject to conditions of appearing before trial court, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving India without permission.

Rambabu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10657 of 2022 Applicant :- Rambabu And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raghubir Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Virendra Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Raghubir Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶5

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 06 of 2022, under Sections 147, 341, 384, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Achhanera, District- Agra, with the prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶6

As per prosecution story, the applicants are stated to have made the life of the first informant miserable as one of the member of the family had married a girl of the village and they were outcasted by the society. Later on, the applicants are stated to have even demanded ransom money and are stated to have attempted to outrage the modesty of the family members of the first informant.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize them. The matter is petty in nature but has been converted into serious one by the first informant. There is no criminal history of the applicants. The charge sheet has been filed but no allegations under Section 354 IPC have been found against the applicants. There is no possibility of the applicants influencing the trial or tampering with the evidence. It is further stated that applicants are co-operating in the trial and are ready to cooperate in future also. There is no likelihood of the applicants repeating the said offence, if any. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the life of the first informant and his family has been turned into hell by the applicants and it has

¶9

been difficult for them to reside in the village. However, he is unable to dispute the fact that applicants have no criminal history.

¶10

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-(2020) 5 SCC 1" , the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶11

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed . In the event of arrest, let the accusedapplicants Rambabu, Dwarika Dixit, Ashok Kumar and Murarilal be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶13

that the applicants shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶14

that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶15

that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant;

¶16

that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶17

that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶18

that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶19

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial or deciding the regular bail application.

¶20

Order Date :- 14.11.2022\Shalini

¶21

Digitally signed by SHALINI JAISWAL Date: 2022.11.14 15:49:32 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rambabu and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rambabu and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neeraj Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Udhan Singh Saini and Another Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Agrawal Vs State of U.P.

Kapil @ Anmol Gulati Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajeet Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Satyawant Govind Rao Vs State of U.P.and Another