Allowed

Rajesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Nov 2022ABAIL/11677/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed anticipatory bail application filed by Rajesh in case under Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC and 3/5 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, relying on Sushila Aggarwal. Bail granted with conditions including availability for interrogation, non-interference with witnesses, and non-departure from India.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond with two sureties, subject to six specific conditions including availability for interrogation and non-interference with witnesses.

Rajesh 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. - 11677 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rajesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Piyush Dubey, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K. Gupta, 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. 394 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC and 3/5 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station-Malpura, District-Agra, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the applicant is said to have been carrying the overloaded truck no. RJ11GB4384 which was not visible to the naked eye.

¶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. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. The offence made out against the applicant is under the Motor Vehicles Act, which is compoundable. 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 bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that applicant has no criminal history.

¶10

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the

¶11

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 Rajesh 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:-

¶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 or deciding the regular bail application.

¶21

Order Date :- 30.11.2022 Shalini

¶22

Digitally signed by SHALINI JAISWAL Date: 2022.12.01 11:44:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Kalyani@ Kalpana Vs State of U.P. and Another

Virendra Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramji Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ramjiyavan Modanval and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Monu @ Rahul Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Man Singh @ Mahendra Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another