Allowed

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

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2022ABAIL/11359/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an anticipatory bail application filed against charges of kidnapping and criminal intimidation. The court allowed bail, directing the applicant to cooperate with the investigation, pay a bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, and not leave the country without permission.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed conditioned on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, cooperation with investigation, and obtaining court permission before leaving the country.

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

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11359 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shailendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sarvesh Chaubey,Aishwarya Krishna Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rahul Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Aishwarya Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.122 of 2021, registered under Sections 366 and 506 IPC at Police StationKadaura, District Jalaun with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the informant got an inkling of some love affair of his daughter with the applicant about four years before the occurrence and is stated to have sent his daughter to his sister's house for studying. On 05.05.2021 at about 1:00 pm, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the daughter of the informant from the house of his sister.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. The allegations levelled in the FIR are vague and based on hearsay evidence. There is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant has committed the said offence. 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 has further stated that the investigation is going on and the charge-sheet has not yet been filed. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that the applicant has co-operated in the investigation and undertakes that he will cooperate in the investigation in future also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the

¶10

anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant deserves to be granted anticipatory bail in connection with the aforesaid case.

¶12

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with following directions:-

¶13

(A) In the event of arrest of the applicant- Shailendra involved in aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on his/her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned;

¶14

(B) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation;

¶15

(C) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

¶16

(D) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶17

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶18

Order Date :- 29.11.2022 Ravi Kant

¶19

Digitally signed by RAVI KANT Date: 2022.11.29 16:57:14 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Vs State of U.P.

Sajan Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Umesh Kumar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinay Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vipinpal Singh Vs State of U.P.