Dismissed

Jagdish Prasad and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2023ABAIL/1311/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Small bench dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail by holding that the applicants are not fit cases for bail until the conclusion of trial, taking into account the nature of the offence and role attributed to them while referring to supreme court precedent. The application was disposed without granting bail, and the lower court was directed to consider future bail applications in light of Su

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail refused. Corresponding bail applications to be considered by lower court in terms of Satender Kumar Antil judgement.

Jagdish Prasad and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1311 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Jagdish Prasad And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Mishra,Amit Kumar Malviya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today annexing the charge-sheet is taken on record.

¶6

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants - Jagdish Prasad, Ram Kumar, Shiv Kumar, Vijay Narayan, Teje Ram and Ram Sukh seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.211 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 186, 353, 332, 504, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Mau, District Chitrakoot.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of their arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. The investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned. Applicants have no criminal history. In case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶10

In this matter, it reveals that after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance has also been taken by the Court concerned.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

Hence, 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 of the merits of the case, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till the end of trial. The prayer made in the application is refused.

¶15

However, it is observed that the bail application of the applicants, if moved, shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 .

¶16

It is further directed that the learned court concerned, while considering the bail application of the applicants in the light of Satender Kumar Antil case (supra), shall pass an order strictly in compliance of the directions given in the aforesaid judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in letter and spirit, particularly complying with the order dated 21.3.2023 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid matter.

¶17

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶18

Order Date :- 13.4.2023 ss

¶19

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

Jagdish Prasad and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Prasad and 5 Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyambir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sant Prakash Goel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prashant and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Shahid Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Vs State of U.P through principal Secretary Home Government