Allowed

Hari Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2023ABAIL/12311/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application filed by Hari Singh under S. 438 Cr.P.C. in Murder and Criminal Conspiracy Case, the court examined submissions regarding acquittal of co-accused and hostile testimony. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court emphasized that non-arrest during investigation entitles release on bail post-charge-sheet. The prayer was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial on personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties subject to conditions of non-interference with witnesses and no leaving India.

Hari Singh Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:231686

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12311 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Hari Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Kanojia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the material available on record. Compliance affidavit filed by the State is taken on record.

¶7

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Hari Singh in connection with Criminal Case No. 2509 of 2019 Case Crime No. 02 of 2000 under Sections 364A, 368, 120-B IPC, P.S. Rampur Maniharan, District- Saharanpur.

¶8

Manoj Jain, the son of the informant was kidnapped by unknown accused persons. FIR was lodged and charge sheet was submitted in this matter.

¶9

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Charge sheet in the matter has been submitted. It is further submitted that the accused applicant is not named in the FIR and his name came into surface during investigation. It is further submitted that during investigation the applicant has been supportive. It is also submitted that after submission of the charge sheet an Application U/S 482 No. 3225 of 2001 was preferred by the present applicant wherein the proceeding of the case were stayed by this Court vide order dated 22.06.2001, however, subsequently following the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC 299 the court concerned proceeded with the matter vide order dated 6.4.2023 and till date no coercive process has been issued against the present applicant. It is further submitted that the co-accused persons of this case Kehar Singh, Ramesh and Rohtas have been

¶10

tried by the trial Court and vide judgement and order dated 24.5.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Saharanpur all the three accused persons have been acquitted by the Court. It is further submitted that the present applicant has been assigned a role of criminal conspiracy. It is further submitted that the abducted person Manoj Jain himself turned hostile during the trial of the case and did not support the prosecution version. It is further submitted that the applicant has sufficiently explained his criminal history by way of supplementary affidavit. It is further submitted that the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute the factual position that three co-accused persons of this case have been acquitted by the concerned Sessions Court and the abducted person Manoj Jain has also turned hostile during course of trial and has not supported the prosecution version.

¶12

In the present case charge sheet has been submitted. The applicant was not arrested during course of investigation. Now no custodial interrogation is required.

¶13

It reveals from the perusal of the record that no process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant till date and he has cooperated during the investigation.

¶14

Although the charge sheet has been submitted in this matter but in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶15

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶16

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the

¶17

role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶18

In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that :

¶19

"11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87 Cr.P.C that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.

¶20

In sofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170Cr.P.C, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."

¶21

Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till conclusion of trial in the matter.

¶22

The anticipatory bail application is allowed accordingly.

¶23

In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶24

i. 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.

¶25

ii. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶26

iii.The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶27

iv.The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶28

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicant in accordance with law.

¶29

Order Date :- 7.12.2023 Fhd

¶30

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hari Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Singh v. State of U.P.

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

Mithlesh Vs State of U.P.

Jagdeesh Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Rasida Bano Vs State of U.P.

Sudha Vs State of U.P.

Vakil Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Gyan Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another