Allowed

Susheel Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2022ABAIL/10868/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application filed under Section 438 CrPC, the High Court granted anticipatory bail to Susheel Kumar in a case involving Section 307 IPC alleging assault on students. The court observed that the applicant was not named in the FIR initially and distinguished his case from the named accused, relying on Sushila Aggarwal.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail subject to personal bond with sureties and conditions regarding non-interference, travel outside India, and appearance in court.

Susheel Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10868 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Susheel Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rabindra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prem Shankar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rabindra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prem Shankar Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri P.K. Srivastava, 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. 143 of 2022, under Sections 307, 294, 506 IPC, Police Station- Khairagarh, District- Agra, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the co-accused person Ram Prakash alongwith one unknown person is said to have assaulted the various students of the school and is stated to have fired at them.

¶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 applicant is not named in the FIR. His name has come up later on in the statement of the first informant. Had he been the assailant, his name would have come up in the FIR itself, which has been filed after a delay of one day, after legal consultation. 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. and learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and have stated that the applicant is a member of large gang operating in the area. However, learned A.G.A. is unable to dispute the fact that applicant has no criminal history.

¶10

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, to the fact that the case of the applicant is on a different footing to the named accused person Ram Prakash, 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.

¶11

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed . In the event of arrest, let the accusedapplicant Susheel Kumar 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/Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

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

¶13

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;

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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 :- 18.11.2022 Shalini

¶21

Digitally signed by SHALINI JAISWAL Date: 2022.11.19 18:30:18 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Susheel Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Susheel Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Azeem Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sourav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandan Kumar Rai Vs State of U.P and Another

Nazim Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahesh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Meera Devi and Another Vs State of U.P.