Ishendra Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Heard Shri Ajay Sengar holding brief for Shri Ram Govind, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

The present anticipatory bail application has been moved by the accused/applicants - Ishendra Singh, Amit @ Sumit Singh Rathore, Arjun and Kamal Singh in Case Crime No.0272 of 2019, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 504, 506, 353, 427, 188 I.P.C, & 7 The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, Police Station Rampura, District Jalaun, with the prayer to grant them anticipatory bail as they are apprehending arrest in the abovementioned case.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants were not named in the first information report and it appears that on the fateful day one of the local resident was done to death and there was unrest amongst the residents of the locality and there was a law and order situation. There were allegedly many persons who were disturbing the peace tranquility of the area, however, the names of the applicants have been dragged into the incident without any basis.

¶12

It is further submitted that the applicants were not indulged in an unlawful activity and only on the basis of hearsay statement the applicants have been made accused persons in the incident while they were not having any concern with the same. Charge sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Agency without arresting the applicants. However, as the offences against the

¶13

applicants are non-bailable the applicants are having apprehension that they may be arrested in compliance of any coercive process of the trial court.

¶14

It is also submitted that the applicants are ready to cooperate in the trial and would abide by any condition or direction which may be imposed by this Court as well as by the subordinate/ trial court and also that they will not misuse the liberty.

¶15

It is also submitted that co-accused persons of the crime, namely, Devendra, Monu, Gopal, Chhote Lal @ Chhotge Lal, Jitu @ Arun, Munim, Ashutosh, Rajiv and Raju @ Shankar Saran Kumar have been granted protection from arrest by Coordinate Benches of this Court, vide orders dated 16.3.2022, 11.3.2022 and 27.1.2022 passed in CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. Nos. - 361 of 2022, 356 of 2022 and 128 of 2022 and many of these accused persons were also named in the first information report while the applicants were not named therein.

¶16

Learned AGA , however, has opposed prayer anticipatory bail on the ground that the applicants have committed grave and heinous offences and therefore they are not entitled for any protection.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the applicants were not named in the FIR and their names have surfaced during the course of investigation. Admittedly many co-accused persons have been granted protection from arrest including those who were named in the first information report. The Investigating Agency has also chosen not to arrest the applicants during the course of investigation and the charge sheet has been filed without arresting them. Thus having regard to the law laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtgra 2011)1 SCC 694 , Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1 and Satender Kumar Antill Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : MANU/SC/1024/2021, the applicants could be granted protection from arrest.

¶18

It is directed that, in the event of their arrest, the applicants Ishendra Singh, Amit @ Sumit Singh Rathore, Arjun and Kamal Singh shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail in above case crime number, during pendency of the trial before the competent court on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of police station/court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶19

(i) The applicants shall make himself available for interrogation

¶20

by the police officer as and when required, if investigation is in progress;

¶21

(ii) 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 such person from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶22

(iii) The applicants shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned/Court concerned.

¶23

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Government Advocate is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

¶24

The Investigating Officer will continue with the investigation, if it is in progress and the same will not be affected by this order.

¶25

A copy of this order shall also be produced before the S.P/S.S.P concerned by the applicants, within a week, if the investigation is still in progress, who shall ensure compliance of this order.

¶26

This anticipatory bail application is allowed, in above tgerms.

¶27

Order Date :- 12.4.2022 Muk

¶28

Digitally signed by MOHD UMAR KHAN Date: 2022.04.13 11:17:22 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ishendra Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishendra Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanraj Patel Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vindeshwari Sonker and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akbar Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Tiwari @ Ratnesh Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amit Vs State of U.P.

Darshan Lal Vs State of U.P.