Anticipatory bail application allowed. Applicant granted relief in a case alleging illegal mining, false implication, and threats. Bail conditioned upon cooperation and non-tampering.
Accused-applicant released forthwith on anticipatory bail on furnishing personal sureties and two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11169 of 2022
Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vikash Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Criminal Case3 No.6910171 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.181 of 2018, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC & 3/57/7 of U.P. Khanij Parihar Rules, 1963 at Police Station- Iradat Nagar, District Agra with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
As per prosecution story, four persons were arrested by the police in a police party firing case who were involved in illegal mining on 18.10.2018.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant was earlier granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 19.01.2021 and has not misused the said opportunity granted to him and at the time of passing of the said order, the final report (charge-sheet) had already been filed in court and inadvertently, the said order has been passed in the protection was granted to the applicant till the submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The applicant is not a previous convict, although there is criminal history of seven cases assigned to the applicant which has been explained. 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. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Virendra Kumar Sharma be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/court concerned with the following conditions:-
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.
Order Date :- 29.11.2022 Ravi Kant
Digitally signed by RAVI KANT Date: 2022.11.29 16:48:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in a prosecution for illegal mining.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)Applied¶10
(2020) 5 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Virendra Kumar Sharma
State of U.P.
Krishan Pahal
Ravi Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
