Allowed

Kamaljeet v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Oct 2023ABAIL/10904/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court observed that the applicant was falsely implicated and acquitted him on bail with standard conditions including surrendering passport and cooperating with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount subject to specified conditions.

Kamaljeet Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195685

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10904 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Kamaljeet Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit has been filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant.

¶8

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.420 of 2023, under Sections 366, 504, 506, 376, 406 IPC, Police Station Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant in fact no such incident has taken place as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The incident is alleged to have taken on 20.06.2023 whereas the impugned FIR was lodged on 02.07.2023 but there is no plausible explanation regarding delay. As per medical report, the victim is 19 years and there is no injury found on the body of the victim. He further submits that the victim herself has stated in her statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. that she was having love affairs with the applicant about four years ago, hence, she is a consenting party. Prima facie no alleged offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 21 of the affidavit. He further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not dispute the

¶11

aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 . The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Kamaljeet, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.

¶15

(ii) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶18

(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶19

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 .

¶20

(vii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶21

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶22

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.

¶23

Order Date :- 11.10.2023 Ajeet

¶24

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kamaljeet v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamaljeet 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

Anil Sirohi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shubham Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jogendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Swaminath Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Aashish Singh Vs State of U.P.

Muninder Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others