Hariom Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:209996

Court No. - 71

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11751 of 2023

Applicant :- Hariom Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Neetu Singh,Vishal Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rahul Kumar Sharma

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Order on Amendment Application

¶7

This is an application for amendment in the array of parties. Application is allowed. Counsel for the applicant is permitted to make necessary amendment during course of the day.

¶8

Order on Anticipatory Bail Application

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶10

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 0255 of 2023, under sections 306 IPC, P.S. Saadabad, District Hathras, during the pendency of application.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is uncle of the husband of the deceased and lives separately from the husband of the deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially F.I.R. has been lodged against 5 named persons under Section 302 IPC but lateron it has been converted into under Section 306 IPC. In the FIR, false allegation has been levelled against the applicant. He further submits that allegations made against the aforesaid applicant are fake and general in nature. It is further submitted that there is no allegation of abetment or instigation against the applicant as per statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The applicant is having definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time.

¶12

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said facts.

¶13

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 . The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶14

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail.

¶15

Let the applicant Hariom involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

(1) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation;

¶17

(2) 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; and

¶18

(3) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶19

(4) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶20

(5) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶21

(6) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶22

(7) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶23

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶24

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of.

¶25

Order Date :- 2.11.2023 RavindraKSingh

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hariom v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariom v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Farman @ Farmaan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abrar Shah and Another Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Vaibhav Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kapil Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Gangwar Vs State of U.P. and Another