Allowed

Shishupal and 5 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Oct 2023ABAIL/10786/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal miscellaneous application seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court, considering injuries sustained and no evidence of serious threat or flight, granted interim anticipatory bail pending the filing of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on furnishing a bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail granted pending police report on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of similar amount and undertaking specified conditions.

Shishupal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:198992

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10786 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Shishupal And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rahul Mehrotra

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

¶7

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants- 1. Shishupal, 2. Jawaharlal, 3. Anil Kumar, 4. Yogendra, 5 Shyamveer seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 300 of 2023, under Sections 147, 452, 354Kha, 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Etah.

¶8

The FIR of the case consists of the allegations that named accused persons seven in number including the present applicants came to the house of the informant and tried to outrage the modesty of her daughter and also made an assault upon daughter, mother-in-law of the informant, who sustained grevious injuries and accused Amarpal made an assault upon her head with intention to kill with the aid of an axe. Five persons have sustained injuries in the incident. FIR was lodged on 7.7.2023 and investigation started, which is going on.

¶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. Investigation is going on in the matter. It is further submitted that no specific role of assault has been assigned to any of the accused persons in the FIR. It is also submitted that although accused Amarpal has been assigned a role of assault upon the head of the injured Surajmukhi with intention to kill but however in her CT scan report no adversity has been discovered in her injury. It is further submitted that all the injured persons in the incident have sustained only simple injuries. It is also submitted that the applicants have been cooperative with the investigation so far. It is

¶10

also submitted that no statement of injured Surajmukhi has been recorded by the I.O. as yet. 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. and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that injured Surajmukhi has sustained grevious injuries and still she is not in a position to give any statement before the I.O. and she is admitted in hospital. It is further submitted that the applicants also tried to outrage the modesty of the daughter of the informant and a total number of 5 members have been sustained injuries in this matter.

¶12

In the present case no serious injury has been caused to any of the injured persons and the CT scan report relating to injured Surajmukhi, who is said to sustained serious head injury reveals that no adversity has been discovered in her injuries.

¶13

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held 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.

¶14

In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶15

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant 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 applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶16

10. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicants, 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 Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶19

(ii) 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 office.

¶20

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶21

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicants.

¶22

Order Date :- 13.10.2023 Fhd

¶23

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

Shishupal and 5 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shishupal and 5 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

Bhanu Pratap Singh Gangwar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mehadi Hasan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Km. Punki Vs State of U.P. and Another

Daljit Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Asif @ Mohd Aashif Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another