Allowed

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

Allahabad HC30 Nov 2023ABAIL/11552/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge granted anticipatory bail to an applicant apprehending arrest in an FIR alleging criminal conspiracy and attempt to murder. The court cited Supreme Court law, imposed standard bail conditions without prejudicing the trial, and disposed of the application favoring the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties subject to specific conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:226905

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11552 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Naveen Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Zia Naz Zaidi,Mohammad Haadi Zaidi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Ms. Zia Naz Zaidi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, 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. 211 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 120-B of IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Bhopa, District Muzaffar Nagar, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the named accused persons, Golu @ Sachin, Akshay, Ayush, Bangal, Rajkumar, Abhishant and some unknown persons are stated to have fired indiscriminately in the house of the informant on 28.07.2023 at about 02:00 AM. The said assailants were seen in the CCTV footage of the house.

¶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 no person has sustained any injury whatsoever. The named accused person Ayush was arrested and in his statement, the name of the applicant has come up which is not admissible in evidence.

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

¶13

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties

¶14

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, Naveen Kumar 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 :- 30.11.2023 Siddhant

¶25

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen 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

Subash Vs State of U.P.

Monu Vs State of U.P.and 2 Others

Mohd. Laiq @ Laiq Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Janu Alias Jan Vs State of U.P. .and Another

Sanjeev Kumar Bansal Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Saif Vs State of U.P.