Allowed

Johny Jonson v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Oct 2023ABAIL/11371/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. arising from an abetment of suicide case, the Court allowed the bail application by relying on the law laid down in Sushila Aggarwal, imposing standard conditions including surrender for interrogation and prohibition against tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial on personal bond with two sureties and standard conditions.

Johny Jonson Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:204769

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11371 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Johny Jonson Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Umakant Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri S.K. Pandey, Advocvate holding brief of Sri Umakant Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 458 of 2023, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Banna Devi, District Aligarh, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicant and other named accused persons are stated to have tormented the deceased person thereby abetting him to commit suicide on 18.07.2023 by hanging himself.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has apprehension of his arrest. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has further stated that he is not related at all with the deceased person rather he is the driver of the car. No role of abetment has been assigned to the applicant. The FIR is delayed by two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Even the inquest report indicates that the informant Ramvir is the panch witness no.1 and it is he who had informed the police station about the said incident and there is no whisper of abetment regarding the death of his son. Later on, he has received a suicide note and even the said suicide note does not fulfill the ingredients of Sections 306 and 107 IPC, as such, the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶11

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶12

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the

¶13

learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶14

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of " Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 ", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶15

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶16

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Johny Jonson involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶17

i. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶18

ii. that 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;

¶19

iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶20

iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶23

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶24

Order Date :- 27.10.2023 Siddhant

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Johny Jonson v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Johny Jonson 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

Deenanath Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhishek Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Vs State of U.P.

Bechan Lal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nitya Nand Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Virendra Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.and Another