The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants charged with offences under the IPC regarding election interference, citing a case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre.
Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties each, subject to standard conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12272 of 2022
Applicant :- Deva @ Sanjeev Kumar Arya And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Chandra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Ram Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 301 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 336, 141, 188, 504 IPC read with Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act read with Section 2/3 Prevention of Public Property Damages Act, Police Station- Sikandra Rau, District- Hathras, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.
Facts in brief are that in the election of Block Pramukh after declaring result the applicant along with other co-accused persons made interference in the proceedings and also blocked the road. Some of them were arrested by the police and others fled away.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and they have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. He further submits that the persons who have been named in the first information report have already been granted anticipatory bail. The applicants undertake to co-operate during investigation and trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.
Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicants, they are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicants are not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear,
anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.
In the instant case, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.
The anticipatory bail application is disposed off.
In the event of arrest of the applicants- Deva alias Sanjeev Kumar Arya, Bhisham Pal Singh, Vimal Kumar, Bablu Yadav, Lavkush alias Shilendra and Kanhaiya alias Saurav alias Gaurav in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned/Court below concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) that the applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected;
(ii) the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by the police as and when required;
(iii) 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;
(iv) that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate
application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.
The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation, if pending, of the present case in accordance with law, expeditiously, independently without being prejudiced by any observations made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicants.
Order Date :- 5.1.2023 Arti
Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable in view of the nature and gravity of the accusations against the applicants.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶11
(2011) 1 SCC 694 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Deva @ Sanjeev Kumar Arya and 6 Others
State of U.P.
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
