Allowed

Chandrajeet Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Nov 2023ABAIL/10888/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a second application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Considering the nature of accusation, antecedents, and lack of credible evidence, the court held that a case for bail was made out. It granted bail subject to conditions regarding tampering with evidence or witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount upon compliance with conditions against tampering or intimidation.

Chandrajeet Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:219777

¶2

Court No. - 78

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10888 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Chandrajeet Jaiswal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ghazanfar Abbas Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present second application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Criminal case no. 881 of 2005, arising out of Case Crime no. 07 of 2002, under Section 409, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Uska Bazar, District Siddharth Nagar with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. The first anticipatory bail application of applicant was dismissed for want of prosecution on 17.10.2022.

¶8

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Earlier applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail but later on the said application was dismissed for want of prosecution. The anticipatory bail application of co-accused Jai Narayan is pending before this Court, wherein interim relief has already been granted to the said co-accused and that the case of the applicant is on better footing than of the said co-accused. It was pointed out that the incident relates to the year 2002 and after investigation, police have submitted final report in favour of the applicant but later on

¶9

the trial court has taken cognizance on the protest petition filed by the informant. The only allegation against the applicant is that he has threatened the informant. The applicant undertakes to cooperate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the trial and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

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

¶11

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶12

In the instant case, considering the settled principle 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 on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶13

The instant second anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Chandrajeet Jaiswal involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-

¶15

with 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 :-

¶16

i. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. ii.The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

iii.The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶18

iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶19

v. The applicant 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. 9. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶20

Order Date :- 20.11.2023 Anand

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chandrajeet Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrajeet Jaiswal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Gulshan Jahan @ Bhabhi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Paremesh Kumar Mishra @ Balau Vs State of U.P.

Suman Gautam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Azam Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ganesh Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Bakey Lal Vs State of U.P.