Allowed

Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Nov 2023ABAIL/11297/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Vinod Kumar in a robbery case spanning over three decades. The court held the case fit for bail pending trial, citing the Supreme Court's view that bail can continue after the charge sheet until conclusion of trial.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; release on anticipatory bail conditioned on personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:216771

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11297 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Shahi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Vinod Kumar in connection with Case Crime No. 375 of 1986, under sections 364, 342, 343, 323, 394, 218, 220, 177, 120-B IPC, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Meerut.

¶8

It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the robbery was committed by the present applicant along with his companion and F.I.R. was lodged on 13.09.1986. After investigation, firstly charge sheet was filed against some of the co-accused persons and subsequently, another supplementary charge sheet was filed against the present applicant on 25.05.2006.

¶9

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Charge sheet in the matter has been submitted. It is further submitted that the accused applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is next submitted that after lodging of the F.I.R., a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.3189 of 2006 was preferred by the present applicant wherein an interim protection was granted to him vide order dated 24.03.2006 and subsequently after submission of the charge sheet, an Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.9047 of 2007 was preferred by another co-accused Som Dutt Tyagi vide order dated 24.04.2007 wherein the proceedings of the entire case was stayed by this Court. It is further submitted that till 18.04.2022, the stay was continued and subsequently, the trial court proceeded with the matter following the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing case vide order

¶10

dated 18.04.2022 and processes were issued against the applicant. It is next submitted that meanwhile, the trial of the co-accused persons ended into an acquittal on 30.03.2007. It is also submitted that the present applicant has been cooperative during the course of investigation. It is next submitted that although an endorsement has been made in the order sheet of the case to issue N.B.W. and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. on 02.08.2023 but as a matter of fact, only N.B.W. was issued fixing 17.08.2023. It is next submitted that without following the correct procedure, the punitive process was issued against the present applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant was a resident of the State of Uttarakhand and that is why, no process was ever served upon him. It is next submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to cooperate with the trial and now he is a retired police personnel, having no criminal history to his credit and as such, he is entitled for anticipatory bail. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he 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. However, he could not dispute the factual aspect, which has been highlighted by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

In the present matter, the I.O. of the case do not require investigation from the present applicant and after submission of charge sheet, no custodial interrogation is required.

¶13

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 controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

Hence, 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 conclusion of trial in the matter.

¶17

9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶18

In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his 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 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 or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶21

(iii) 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.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by him 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 applicant in accordance with law.

¶24

Order Date :- 9.11.2023 Shivangi

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar 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

Sharafat Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another

A.K. Mehra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anotehr

Sachin Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikas Meena Vs State of U.P. and Another