Allowed

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

Allahabad HC9 Nov 2023ABAIL/11741/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by two applicants under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving Sections 363, 366, and 506 IPC. The court granted bail on the ground of parity with a co-accused, imposing standard conditions without opining on the merits of the charge.

What did the court decide?

The applicants Sarvesh Kumar and Amit Kumar were released on anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. along with two sureties and substantial bond conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:216035

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11741 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sarvesh Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No.94 of 2023 registered under Sections 363, 366 and 506 IPC at Police StationBharthana, District Etawah with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that coaccused person Brajpal Singh @ Kallu has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 6.7.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.6818 of 2023. Therefore, the present applicants are also entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. There is no criminal history of the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants undertake that they will cooperate in the trial failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

¶10

The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Apex Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau

¶12

of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶13

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants- Sarvesh Kumar and Amit Kumar be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i). that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

(ii). that the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶16

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

¶17

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 9.11.2023 Ravi Kant

¶23

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvesh Kumar and Another 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

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Puran Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Umesh Vs State of U.P.

Juvenile A.B. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjay Prasad Jaiswal Vs State of U.P.

Praveen Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another