Allowed

Nitin Singh Alias Trivendar Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2023ABAIL/10578/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants in a case involving allegations of grievous hurt and attempt to murder, allowing bail until the trial concludes based on the nature of the offence and lack of credible evidence.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties under specified conditions.

Nitin Singh Alias Trivendar Singh and Another… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:181415

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10578 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Nitin Singh Alias Trivendar Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ronak Chaturvedi 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. Nitin Singh @ Trivendar Singh and 2. Manjeet Singh @ Shakti in connection with Case Crime No. 413 of 2017, under sections 307, 324, 323, 506, 511 IPC, P.S. Haldaur, DistrictBijnor.

¶8

The prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is that due to some animosity of a previous criminal case, Ankit, the injured, brother of the informant was held by the named accused persons including the present applicants and co-accused Babli made an assault upon his neck with knife with intention to kill and he sustained grevious injuries. FIR was lodged on the direction of the Court on 7.11.2017 on an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. moved by the informant about 1 month after the occurrence and after investigation final report was submitted in favour of the accused persons but on filing of a protest petition by the informant the final report was rejected by the concerned Magistrate Court and all the accused persons including the present applicants were summoned to face the trial by the Magistrate Court vide order dated 16.3.2023 under Section 307, 323, 324, 506, 511 I.P.C.

¶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 no role of assault has been assigned to the present applicants either in the FIR or in the statement made by the informant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that

¶10

there is no independent witness of the alleged occurrence. It is also submitted that the police during investigation did not find any case to be made out against the applicants and that is why a final report was submitted in this matter. It is further submitted that only due to the animosity of a criminal case, the present applicants have been falsely implicated in this matter. It is also submitted that the applicants are having a criminal antecedent of one case only, which was lodged by the informant side itself and that is explained in the affidavit annexed with the anticipatory bail application. It is also submitted that the applicants are cooperating with the investigation of the case and the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution version. In case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but however could not dispute this factual aspect that no assault of knife has been made by the present applicants to the injured.

¶12

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

¶16

anticipatory bail to the applicants till conclusion of trial in the matter.

¶17

The anticipatory bail application is allowed accordingly.

¶18

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 :-

¶19

i. 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 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 :- 20.9.2023 Fhd

¶25

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

Nitin Singh Alias Trivendar Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Singh Alias Trivendar Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Riyaz Mohd @ Raju Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Makhanchu Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Alisher Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Mohsin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Aqil and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Harendra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others