Allowed

Manbind v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2023ABAIL/12837/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an anticipatory bail application by Manbind in a CRPC case involving alleged eve-teasing and assault. The court noted the applicant had no criminal antecedents, was cooperative, and no specific role was assigned. Bail is granted till the end of trial subject to a bond of Rs. 50,000 and standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till the end of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:232087

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12837 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Manbind Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar,Bishwamohan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶8

Apprehending his arrest, the present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Manbind in Case Crime No.218 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Nonhara, District Ghazipur, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

The F.I.R. was lodged against the named accused persons alleging eve-teasing with the minor informant and also making assault on her family members. After investigation, now chargesheet has been submitted in the matter.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. He has been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. The investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed. It is further submitted that no specific role of assault has been assigned to the applicant in the alleged incident and a general role has been assigned to all the accused persons. It is also submitted that although four persons are said to have sustained injuries in this matter, but they have sustained simple injuries only. In x-ray report of the injured Bujharat, no adversity has been discovered, but however in the C.T. scan, which was performed by a private Doctor, skull fracture has been shown. It is also submitted that the informant / victim of this case in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and even u/s 164 Cr.P.C. has not named the

¶11

applicant and as per the aforesaid statements, the applicant was not present at the place of occurrence and actually he played no role in the commission of the offence alleged. It is also submitted that during the course of investigation, notice u/s 41-A Cr.P.C. was given to the applicant and he has not misused the aforesaid liberty. It is also submitted that the applicant is having no criminal antecedents to his credit. He has been cooperative with the investigation throughout and the offences alleged against him are punishable with the imprisonment for a maximum period of seven years and as such the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and it has been vehemently argued that four persons have sustained injuries in this matter and skull fracture has been found in the injury of injured Bujharat, the father of the informant, but however he could not dispute this factual position that the applicant has been cooperative throughout during investigation.

¶13

In the present matter, after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted. No custodial interrogation is required in the matter.

¶14

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding 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, likelihood 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 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.

¶17

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

¶18

"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 87CrPC 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.

¶19

12. Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170CrPC, 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 ."

¶20

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 end of the trial in the matter.

¶21

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶22

In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of the trial 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 :-

¶23

(i) The applicant shall make himself available before the court concerned on the date fixed in the matter;

¶24

(ii) 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 / her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶25

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶26

In case of default of any of the conditions, same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.

¶27

Order Date :- 6.12.2023 ss

¶28

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manbind v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manbind 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

Kapil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dhoop Nath and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Subhash Chandra Tyagi Vs State of U.P.

Mithlesh Vs State of U.P.

Jagdeesh Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Rasida Bano Vs State of U.P.