Allowed

Pushpendra Singh Baghel v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2023ABAIL/12909/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for an accused facing charges of gang rape and related offenses, relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding the right to bail pending trial.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on a personal bond with two sureties, with conditions to appear in court and not to tamper with evidence or fleee India without permission.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:227177

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12909 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Pushpendra Singh Baghel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bhanu Prakash Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case No. 1529 of 2020, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith one Manoj Kumar @ Charan and four unknown persons, are stated to have committed gang rape with the informant on 2.11.2014 at about 9.00 pm by barging into her house.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has the apprehension of his arrest. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has next stated that an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved before the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Mathura, who was pleased to treat it as a complaint case. The applicant was summoned vide order dated 10.7.2015 u/s 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC only. It is next stated that no allegations u/s 376-D IPC were found made out by the Magistrate concerned. It is next stated that the applicant had no knowledge of the summoning order, as such, he could not apply for anticipatory bail earlier on.

¶9

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶11

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of " Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 ", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶12

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Pushpendra Singh Baghel 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

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;

¶16

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

¶17

iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; 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 bail granted to 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

Order Date :- 1.12.2023/Shalini

¶21

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pushpendra Singh Baghel v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpendra Singh Baghel 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

Naveen Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Janu Alias Jan Vs State of U.P. .and Another

Sanjeev Kumar Bansal Vs State of U.P.

Suneel Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sachin Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dashrath Bharti Vs State of U.P.