The High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant in a case involving theft under IPC 379 and Mines and Minerals Act, releasing him on personal and surety bond with standard conditions.
Accused released forthwith on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties in the like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9809 of 2022
Applicant :- Mahesh Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Rahul Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.0019 of 2022, registered under Section 379 IPC & 4/21 Mines and Minerals Act at Police Station- Mataundh, District Banda with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
As per prosecution story, an unloaded truck No. UP 78 FN 1683 was being driven by the driver of the applicant on 25.11.2021.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no evidence against the applicant and the co-accused persons, namely, Arun and Mulayam, have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 21.7.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.5925 of 2022. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. The case of the applicant is at par with the coaccused persons. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
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 applicant.
On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the
applicant, the applicant is 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), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Mahesh Singh be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/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:-
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.
Order Date :- 18.11.2022 Ravi Kant
Digitally signed by RAVI KANT Date: 2022.11.18 16:59:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. considering the nature of accusations and antecedents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)Followed¶11
(2020) 5 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mahesh Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
