Allowed

Rajesh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Sept 2022ABAIL/13602/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad disposed of an application under S. 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail. The applicant was accused of theft and mischief under IPC and U.P. Minor Minerals Act. The court found a case out for bail, noting the applicant's innocence, lack of antecedents, and false allegations. Bail was granted on bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount.

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

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13602 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rajesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ran Jeet Singh,Chandra Jeet Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 408 of 2019, under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C. and Sections 3/57/7 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Act, Police Station Mauranipur, District Jhansi with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. It has further been submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicant so far. Applicant is not named in the FIR, which was lodged against co-accused Ram Prakash. During investigation, involvement of applicant was shown on the basis that he is owner of the tractor. The applicant was not present at the spot and the allegation that applicant has ran away from the spot is thoroughly false. The case is triable by the court of Magistrate and recovery has already been effected. Earlier applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 13.08.2021 and he has never misused the liberty of interim anticipatory bail. The applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted

¶8

anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.

¶10

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶11

In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶12

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Rajesh involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions :-

¶14

(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police as and when required;

¶15

(ii) 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/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶16

(iii) the applicant would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶18

Order Date :- 1.9.2022 Anand

¶19

Digitally signed by ANAND VERMA Date: 2022.09.03 11:48:45 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajesh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh 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

Vinay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lucky Trisholiya and 5 Others Vs State of U.P.

Nizam Alam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brajesh Kumar Gupta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Akhilesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Anotherr

Subhash Chandra Sharma Vs State of U.P.