Allowed

Anuj Chauhan and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2023ABAIL/10379/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to four applicants facing charges under Section 384 IPC related to forcible recovery of parking fees. Relying on precedent, the court allowed bail till the conclusion of the trial, specifying conditions including a bond of Rs. 50,000 with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; respondents to be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties.

Anuj Chauhan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:178711

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10379 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Anuj Chauhan And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicants- 1. Anuj Chauhan, 2. Rinka Pandit @ Rinku Bhardwaj, 3. Tinku @ Sumit Kumar 4. Ritesh Sisodhiya in connection with Case Crime No. 501 of 2022, under section 384 IPC, P.S.-Etmadadulla, District- Agra.

¶8

It is alleged that some persons were realising parking fee forcibly from the members of the public at a Nagar Nigam parking and three out of them were arrested by the police on spot and on the basis of the their statement the name of the present applicant came into light. After investigation charge sheet has been submitted.

¶9

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. After investigation charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. It is further submitted that the name of the present applicant came into light on the basis of statement of the co-accused persons. It is further submitted that a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 13612 of 2022 filed by the applicants has been disposed of with a certain direction to comply the provisions of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. by way of orders dated 6.9.2022 and 21.09.2022. It is further submitted that the applicants have been cooperative during course of investigation. The applicants have no criminal history to their credit. In case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

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

¶11

In the present case the offences levelled against the applicants are punishable with the imprisonment for a maximum period upto seven years. After filing of charge sheet no custodial interrogation is required.

¶12

Although the charge sheet has been submitted in this matter but in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶13

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶14

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶15

Hence, considering the settled principles 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 of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till conclusion of trial in the matter.

¶16

The anticipatory bail application is allowed accordingly.

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid case crime, they 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 Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶18

i. The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any

¶19

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence

¶20

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

¶21

iii.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.

¶22

iv.The applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicants in accordance with law.

¶24

Order Date :- 15.9.2023 Fhd

¶25

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anuj Chauhan and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuj Chauhan and 3 Others 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

Sanjay Agrawal and Anotehr Vs State of U.P.

Aamir Ali and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sukai Harijan vs State of U.P.

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

Fardeen Vs State of U.P.

Alim Vs State of U.P. and Another