Jayprakash Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:237493

Court No. - 71

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12981 of 2023

Applicant :- Jayprakash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Vashistha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit has been filed today, is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Vashistha, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶8

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.436 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kasganj, District kasganj.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant in fact no such incident has taken place as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant is father-in-law aged about 59 years. The applicant is also not named in the FIR. He further submits that after one month of the alleged incident, during investigation the name of the applicant has been shown. The informant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not levelled any serious allegation against the applicant but the informant in second statement has implicated the applicant. Only general allegation has been leveled and no specific role has been assigned to the applicant. The main role has been assigned to husband and his uncle. He further submits that as per postmortem report, there is no internal and external injury found on the body of the deceased and cause of death is Asphyxia as a result of antimortem hanging and hyoid bone found intact. Charge sheet has already been submitted against husband and his uncle, namely, Kishan Lal and Omwati. The investigation is going on against the applicant. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 30 of the affidavit. He further

¶10

submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98 . The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Jayprakash, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.

¶15

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶18

(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶19

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98 .

¶20

(vii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶21

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶22

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.

¶23

Order Date :- 15.12.2023 Ajeet

¶24

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jayprakash v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayprakash v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deen Dayal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahees Vs State of U.P.

Virendra Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Aashish Singh Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home and Another

Bachhu Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.