Allowed

Shaktiman v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Aug 2022ABAIL/4834/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of Allahabad High Court considered an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving alleged preparation of spurious liquor. Considering the nature of accusation, lack of public witnesses, and the applicant's undertaking to cooperate, the court held that a case for anticipatory bail was made out.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application is allowed; applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties upon arrest.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4834 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shaktiman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ramajan Ahmad,Ali Hasan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Affidavit of applicant, filed by the learned counsel for the applicant, is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 57 of 2022, under Sections 60(2) of Excise Act and Section 272 IPC, Police Station Auraiya, District Auraiya with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶8

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. According to the prosecution version, on 26.01.2022 after receipt of any information, the police had conducted a raid, where accused persons were preparing spurious liquor. Co-accused Sardar was apprehended on the spot, whereas the applicant and co-accused have ran away and police have recovered 30 liter of illicit kachhi liquor, some urea and other tools used in manufacturing of liquor. Learned counsel has submitted that involvement of the applicant has been shown on the basis of co-accused and except that there is no evidence against the applicant. The allegation that the applicant was indulging in preparation of illicit liquor,

¶9

is false. There is no public witness of the alleged incident. The criminal history of two cases, shown against the applicant, has been duly explained. It was also submitted that 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 anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Shaktiman 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

¶15

following conditions :-

¶16

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

¶17

(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;

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 3.8.2022 Ashish

¶21

Digitally signed by ASHISH Date: 2022.08.04 17:50:59 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shaktiman v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaktiman 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

Dheeraj and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Ataullah and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Mehul Kumari Vs State of U.P.

Kajim Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hemant Kaushik Alias Tinku Vs State of U.P. and Another