Allowed

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

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2023ABAIL/11866/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Raj Kumar in a case under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of IPC. The grant was based on parity with co-accused who had already been granted anticipatory bail by this court. The applicant was released on a personal bond with two sureties and specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to the applicant on a personal bond with two sureties subject to specific conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:213891

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11866 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Raj Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Tripathi,Anil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri S.P. Pandey, 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 applicant in Case Crime No. 104 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, Police Station Robertganj, District Sonbhadra, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has claimed parity with the co-accused Ram Kripal and Shiv Kumari, who have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. Nos. 10689 of 2023 and 10894 of 2023 vide orders dated 04.10.2023 and 28.10.2023, respectively. Since the case of the applicant is at par with the co-accused who have already been granted anticipatory bail, the applicant is also entitled for the same on the ground of parity. Learned counsel has also stated that the applicant has criminal history of one case which has been explained in the supplementary affidavit.

¶10

The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by learned AGA. 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 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 of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶12

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Raj 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:-

¶13

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

¶14

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;

¶15

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

¶16

iv. that in case, the charge-sheet is submitted, the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶17

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;

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail of the applicant.

¶19

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.

¶20

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶21

Order Date :- 7.11.2023 Siddhant

¶22

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj 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

Ankush Vs State of U.P.

Jamil Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyam Sundar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aaliya @ Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kapildev Pandey and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Omwati Vs State of U.P.