Dismissed¶11

Shyam Sundar and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Jan 2023ABAIL/11772/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; anticipatory bail; Section 438 Cr.P.C.; Shyam Sundar and 2 others v. State of U.P.; Case Crime No. 57 of 2020; Case No. 737 of 2021; sections 323, 325, 308, 504, 506 IPC; Police Station Saiyan; District Agra; assault with lathi-danda and axe; Veerpal Singh; frontal bone fracture; charge-sheet; delay in FIR; enmity; application rejected; Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.; Order Date 13.1.2023.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail refused; however, the Court directed that if the applicants appear and move a bail application before the learned court concerned, it shall be heard and disposed of as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. ¶11

Shyam Sundar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicants (Shyam Sundar and 2 others) are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in Case Crime No. 57 of 2020 and Case No. 737 of 2021, under sections 323, 325, 308, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Saiyan, District Agra.

¶6

Court's answer

On considering the facts, submissions and record, the applicants caused injuries to several persons, injured Veerpal sustained fracture of frontal bone, sufficient material was collected during investigation and charge-sheet was submitted; there appears no ground to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the applicants.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The anticipatory bail application is rejected.

¶11

Key takeaways

Consequential direction: if the applicants appear and move a bail application before the learned court concerned, the same shall be heard and disposed of as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail under S.438 Cr.P.C. sought in Case Crime No. 57 of 2020 and Case No. 737 of 2021, u/Ss 323, 325, 308, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Saiyan, District Agra, arising out of an alleged assault on 13.04.2020 with lathi-danda and axe in which injured Veerpal Singh sustained a head injury with frontal bone fracture; charge-sheet filed against all accused. Applicants pleaded simple injuries, delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R., enmity and that the injury was caused by falling; learned AGA opposed. The Court found sufficient material collected during investigation and charge-sheet submission, held there was no ground to grant anticipatory bail, and rejected the application, while directing that any bail application moved by the applicants before the court concerned be heard and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11772 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shyam Sundar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 57 of 2020 as well as Case No. 737 of 2021, under sections 323, 325, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Saiyan, District Agra, during the pendency of trial.

¶7

Facts in brief are that on 13.04.2020 the applicants along with other co-accused persons committed assault with lathi-danda and axe causing injuries to the informant side on head and other parts of their body in which the injured Veerpal Singh sustained head injury having frontal bone fracture. After investigation charge-sheet has been submitted against all the accused persons.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the injuries caused to the opposite party are simple in nature and also the F.I.R. was lodged after delay of two days. It is also submitted that on account of alleged enmity applicants were implicated in this case and the injury sustained by Veerpal was caused on account of his falling on the ground. Now, there is apprehension of arrest by the police against the applicants, therefore, requested for anticipatory bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation.

¶9

Learned AGA opposed the prayer as aforesaid.

¶10

On considering the facts and circumstances, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that in this case applicants caused injuries to several persons in which injured Veerpal sustained fracture of frontal bone. During investigation sufficient material was collected by the Investigation Officer and charge-sheet was submitted before the learned court concerned. In this way, there appears no ground to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the applicants.

¶11

Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is, hereby, rejected .

¶12

However, as per the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants, it is provided that if applicants appear and move bail application before learned Court concerned, the same shall be heard and disposed of as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

¶13

Order Date :- 13.1.2023 Vandana

¶14

Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shyam Sundar and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Sundar and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Pratap Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Atul Vs State of U.P. and Another

Omveer Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chanda Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramakant Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another