Allowed

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

Allahabad HC24 Nov 2022ABAIL/11404/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application of Rajni in a case involving extortion and criminal intimidation. The applicant was ordered to be released on furnishing a personal bond and bank guarantees subject to seven standard conditions, including availability for interrogation and not tampering with evidence, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Sushila Aggarwal.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to seven conditions including appearance in trial and no tampering with evidence.

Rajni 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. - 11404 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rajni Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Sharan Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Shiv Sharan Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.M. Yadav, 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.332 of 2022, registered under Sections 323, 427, 504, 384 IPC at Police Station- Tappal, District Aligarh with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have demanded a ransom of Rs.1,000/- per month from the informant who plies Eco Car No. DL 12 CC 3264 near Yamuna Express Way.

¶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. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. 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.

¶9

Per contra, Sri Brijesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application and stated that the compromise has been entered into between the parties and nothing remains there and has not disputed the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has also vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

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.

¶12

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Rajni be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/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:-

¶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

that 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 or deciding the regular bail application.

¶21

Order Date :- 24.11.2022 Ravi Kant

¶22

Digitally signed by RAVI KANT Date: 2022.11.24 16:33:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajni 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nand Lal Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Rashmi Rawat (Advocate) Vs State of U.P.

Mohit @ Anuj and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gulfam Vs State of U.P.

Sumit Shakya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pappu Sonkar @ Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others