Allowed

Krishna Gopal @ Kanha and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Sept 2022ABAIL/6962/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application in a criminal case involving charges of assault and attempted abduction, but granted bail due to lack of credible evidence, allowing release on bond and sureties subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount.

Krishna Gopal @ Kanha and Another Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6962 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Krishna Gopal @ Kanha And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sati Shanker Tripathi,A.K. Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed in Court today, is taken on record. 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. 0356 of 2020, under Sections 354, 511, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station Barsana, District Mathura 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. It has further been submitted that applicants have no criminal antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicants so far. The allegation against the applicants is that on 08.06.2020 at 10.00 AM while the complainant was collecting folder, the applicants caught her and did ' Chedkhani ' with her. Learned counsel submitted that merely a vague allegation has been made in the FIR that applicants did ' Chedchhar ' with her and that in her statement, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., complainant has admitted that there was dispute with applicants on account of boundary of land. In her statement, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., complainant/victim has developed her version and stated that applicant no. 1 made an attempt to commit rape upon her. It was stated that again a vague allegation has been made

¶8

that applicants made an attempt to commit rape upon her. Complainant is a married and mature lady and her allegations are thoroughly false and improbable. Investigation is complete and charge-sheet has already been filed. The applicants undertake to co-operate during trial and they would appear as and when required by the Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the trial 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- Krishna Gopal @ Kanha and Sherpal @ Kallu involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a

¶14

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/court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶15

The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

2.The applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

3.The applicants shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶18

The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶19

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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicants in accordance with law.

¶21

Order Date :- 5.9.2022 Anand

¶22

Digitally signed by ANAND VERMA Date: 2022.09.06 17:20:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Krishna Gopal @ Kanha and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Gopal @ Kanha and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Neeraj Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Meena Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aishwarya Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Anurag Agnihotri @ Abhishek and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahesh Bidauliya and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.