Allowed

Suraj Harijan and Another v. State of U.P. .and Another

Allahabad HC4 Aug 2022ABAIL/5868/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge granted anticipatory bail to two applicants who faced allegations of theft of mobile tower cells. The court held that a case was made out for bail based on the nature of accusation and available facts, imposing conditions for interrogation and cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to applicants on personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each, subject to standard conditions.

Suraj Harijan and Another 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. - 5868 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Suraj Harijan And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. .And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Tripathi,Kaushlendra Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, 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. 183 of 2021, under Sections 380, 457, 413, 461 I.P.C. Section 25 of Indian Telegraph Act, Police Station Sikriganj, District Gorakhpur with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicants so far. The FIR of this case was lodged against unknown persons alleging that on the night of 29/30.12.2021 some unknown persons have stolen 22 cells from vodafone mobile tower. Applicants are not named in the FIR and that during investigation, co-accused Rahul Yadav and Akeel were arrested by the police and 19 stolen cells were recovered from them and that involvement of applicants has been shown on the basis of statement of co-accused Rahul Yadav and except that there is no other evidence against the applicants. Learned counsel submitted that both the applicants are student and they have no previous criminal history but three more cases were imposed upon them along with the present case. The applicants undertake to co-operate during investigation and trial and they would appear as and when

¶8

required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they 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 applicants 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 applicants- Suraj Harijan and Vikas Gupta involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail on their 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 applicants shall make themself available for interrogation by the police as and when required;

¶15

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

¶16

(iii) the applicants 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 applicants.

¶18

Order Date :- 4.8.2022 Anand

¶19

Digitally signed by ANAND VERMA Date: 2022.08.05 11:02:39 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suraj Harijan and Another v. State of U.P. .and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Harijan 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

Shaktiman Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mehul Kumari Vs State of U.P.

Kajim Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandra Shekhar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Prakash @ Lallan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amir and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another