Allowed

Sajan Singh and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Nov 2022ABAIL/96/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Sajan Singh and another in a criminal case involving sections 323, 332, 504, 506, 353, 427 IPC. The court relied on Sushila Aggarwal and granted bail subject to specific conditions regarding appearance, interrogation, and non-interference with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted by furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of availability and non-interference.

Sajan Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 96 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sajan Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the applicants and Smt. Ladli Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No.287 of 2019, registered under Sections 323, 332, 504, 506, 354(Kha), 294, 353, 427 IPC at Police Station- Holagarh, District Allahabad (Prayagraj) with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶7

The applicants were granted interim protection by this Court vide order dated 06.01.2020 and they have not misused the said opportunity granted to them.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants and their fathers have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have nothing to do with the said offence. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicants. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they have co-operated in the investigation and are ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶10

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicants are liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi),

¶11

(2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶12

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants- Sajan Singh and Ghanshyam Singh be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and 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:-

¶13

that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶14

that 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;

¶15

that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶16

that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶17

that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶18

that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶19

that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶20

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial or deciding the regular bail application.

¶21

Order Date :- 28.11.2022 Ravi Kant

¶22

Digitally signed by RAVI KANT Date: 2022.11.29 11:16:00 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sajan Singh and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajan Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prashant Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Dilshad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhagwan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Pachauri Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Indra Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another