Allowed

Goldi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2023ABAIL/11419/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application. Applying Sushila Aggarwal, the court held the applicant entitled to bail on furnishing a personal bond with sureties and complying with specified conditions regarding investigation and attendance.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on anticipatory bail on personal bond with two sureties subject to specific conditions of cooperation and non-interference.

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

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11419 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Goldi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hemendra Pratap Singh,Anshu Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Hemant Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application has been moved on behalf of the applicant- Goldi seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.236 of 2022, under Sections 452, 354, 354Kha, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Baniather, District- Sambhal.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the co-accused Arpit along with his brother/present applicant- Goldi and father Rakesh are stated to have barged into the house of the first informant on 30.8.2022 at about 7.00 pm. The applicant alongwith his brother is stated to have outraged her modesty and even torn her clothes off. On her raising of alarm, the applicant and other co-accused persons are said to have run away from the scene of occurrence.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. Learned counsel has stated that the FIR is at the outset false, as such kind of offence cannot be thought as per social scenario to be committed by the real brothers and father. Learned counsel has next stated that the FIR is a counterblast to the FIR No. 234 of 2022 filed by the cousin of the applicant on 2.9.2022 with respect to an offence been committed on 31.8.2022 at about 9.40 pm. Learned counsel has further stated that after the lodging of the said FIR, the present FIR has been lodged by the first informant as an afterthought, just to cover up the said FIR No. 234 of 2022 and even the occurrence has been shown one day prior to the said occurrence that happened in FIR No. 234 of 2022. No offence, whatsoever, has been committed by the applicant. Applicant has no criminal history. It is further stated that applicant is co-operating in the investigation and is ready to cooperate in future also. There is no likelihood of the applicant repeating the said offence, if any. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made

¶9

against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by 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) 5 SCC 1" , the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶12

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed . In the event of arrest, let the accusedapplicant Goldi be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) 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 court concerned, concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

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

¶14

2. 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;

¶15

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

¶16

4. that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶17

5. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶18

6. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶19

8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶20

9. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶21

Order Date :- 19.1.2023 Saif

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Goldi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Goldi 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

Ehasan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhay Singh Vs State of U.P.

Krishn Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Munni Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sant Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Chandrakesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another