Allowed

Bablu and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2022ABAIL/12037/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Bablu and another under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case registered under Sections 3 and 5 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The court held that the applicants are entitled to bail based on the precedent set in Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi).

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each; conditions include availability for interrogation, no tampering with evidence or witnesses, and appearance in court.

Bablu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12037 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Bablu And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sanjay Singh learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Aditya Kumar Singh, 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 applicants in Case Crime No.0131 of 2022, registered under Sections 3 and 5 of Prevention to Damage of Public Property Act, 1984 at Police Station- Iradat Nagar, District Agra with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the applicants are stated to have attempted to cause damage to the public property by plying overloaded dumper No. RJ 11 GB 2157.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. The case, if any, does not fall within the category of Sections 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, rather the applicants have already been challaned under Section 194 of Motor Vehicles Act. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicants have been put to double jeopardy. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicants. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they have co-operated in the investigation and are ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶9

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 applicants.

¶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 applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶12

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed . In the event of arrest, let the accusedapplicants- Bablu and Suresh be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on bail on furnishing a personal bond and 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 applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶14

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

that the applicants 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 :- 1.12.2022 Shalini

¶22

Digitally signed by SHALINI JAISWAL Date: 2022.12.02 13:14:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bablu and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bablu and Another 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

Mahendra @ Mahendra Rathor Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Kumar Srivastava and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anis Husain Khan @ Anis Hasan Kahn and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Jaiprakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ishwar Singh Vs State of U.P and Another