Allowed

Jaswant v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2023ABAIL/11525/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge judgment grants anticipatory bail to the applicant, Jaswant, pursuant to Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a kidnapping case under Section 363 IPC. The court considers the nature of the accusation and antecedents, concluding that a case for bail is made out and imposing standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Jaswant shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to specified conditions regarding interrogation, inducement, travel, tampering, an

Jaswant 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. - 11525 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Jaswant Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Neelam Singh Chauhan,Rakesh Kumar Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri O.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0009 of 2014, under Section 363 IPC, Police Station Bah, District Agra.

¶7

As per prosecution case, the applicant-Jaswant has been involved in kidnapping of a minor girl and therefore, he has been summoned for the offence under Section 363 IPC by the concerned court under the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C.

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that he is absolutely innocent; in this case initially an FIR was lodged naming one Rinku, of having abducted the victim; during the investigation neither the victim nor any witnesses named the present applicant in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; in her statement given under Section 164 Cr.P.C for the first time the applicant's name was revealed as one of the co-accused persons; after completion of the investigation, the investigating officer did not find sufficient evidence against the applicant, therefore, he filed a chargesheet against Rinku only; during the trial, the victim was examined and she imputed allegations against the present applicant and now the present applicant has been summoned under Section 363 IPC for trial alongwith other coaccused; it is pointed out that the victim in her statement recorded as PW1 has given exaggerated version of the incident dragging his name as one of the person, who committed rape on her; it is argued that the court itself did not rely on this portion of her statement and instead find it fit to summon the present applicant under Section 363 IPC only.

¶9

The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by learned AGA for the State, however, the broader contours of the case

¶10

could not be confronted.

¶11

In case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by the 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, I considered submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case. In my view, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶13

Let the applicant, Jaswant involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each of the same amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the conditions as below:-

¶14

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

¶15

(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;

¶16

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

¶17

(iv) that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶18

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶19

(vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted.

¶20

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

¶21

10. It is made clear that observations made herein shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion at any stage of the case based on material before him.

¶22

Order Date :- 22.2.2023 #Vikram/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jaswant v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaswant 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

Ramsunder Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Kiran and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anuj Kumar @ Golu @ Piyush Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Anu @ Anuradha Vs State of U.P.