Allowed

Deepu @ Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2022ABAIL/10737/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a case concerning offences under Sections 354, 323, 452, 504, and 506 IPC. The court relaxed bail conditions requiring personal bond and sureties, subject to compliance with specified directions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to personal bond, two sureties, and conditions regarding availability for interrogation, no inducement to witnesses, no leaving India, and appearance in court.

Deepu @ Ajay Kumar 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. - 10737 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Deepu @ Ajay Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Durgesh Dubey, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 215 of 2021, under Sections 354, 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Indergarh, District- Kannauj, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have entered the house of the first informant and outraged the modesty of his daughter on 12.8.2021 at about 11.00 pm. After her raising of alarm, the first informant and other persons are stated to have reached there. Seeing them, the applicant is said to have run away from the scene of occurrence. When the first informant complained to the parents of the applicant regarding the said offence, they are stated to have misbehaved with her and the parents and applicant are stated to have assaulted her.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. Learned counsel has stated that the FIR is delayed by about seven days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has next stated that the FIR has been filed after legal consultation to cover up the ingredients of the offence. The victim is major. There is no criminal history of the applicant. It is further stated that applicant is co-operating in the investigation and is ready to cooperate in future also. There is no likelihood of the applicant repeating the said offence, if any. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory

¶10

bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that applicant has no criminal history.

¶11

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 applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶12

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed . In the event of arrest, let the accusedapplicant Deepu @ Ajay Kumar be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned/Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

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

¶14

that the applicant 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;

¶15

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

¶16

that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 15.12.2022 Shalini

¶22

Digitally signed by SHALINI JAISWAL Date: 2022.12.16 09:55:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Deepu @ Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepu @ Ajay Kumar 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

Hariom Vs State of U.P. and Another

Banwari Lal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Anwar Hussain Vs State of U.P.

Mohit Kumar Goyal and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sudhir Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shrikishun Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others