Allowed

Laveesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2023ABAIL/13306/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AHC allowed anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to an applicant named in an FIR for affray and related offences. The court noted the applicant had no specific role assigned, cooperated with investigation, and no serious injuries confirmed against him.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Bail granted upon personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and compliance with conditions regarding appearance, tampe

Laveesh Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:232738

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13306 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Laveesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Tiwari,Mohit Kumar Baisla

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶7

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

¶8

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Laveesh seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0196 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 504, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Bahsuma, DistrictMeerut.

¶9

A free fight took place between two rival groups of the market wherein firing also took place and when the police intervened firing was made by the miscreants. FIR was lodged against some persons including the present applicant on 14.10.2023. Investigation started, which is going on.

¶10

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. Investigation is going on in the matter. It is further submitted that although the applicant is named in the FIR but no assault has been specifically assigned to him in the FIR. It is further submitted that the witnesses of the occurrence have also assigned no specific role to the present applicant in the alleged incident. It is further submitted that some simple injuries have been found on the body of the informant and the injured persons but no fire arm injury has been found to any of the injured person. It is also submitted that the main accused Akshay Tomar has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12577 of 2023 by order dated 17.11.2023 and the case of the present applicant is on the same

¶11

footing. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶12

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

¶13

In the present case criminal antecedent of one solitary case in respect of the present applicant has been explained. No specific role has been assigned to the present applicant in the commission of the offence. He has been cooperative with the investigation so far.

¶14

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held 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 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.

¶15

In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶16

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 filing of police report under Section 173(2)

¶17

Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶18

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶19

In the event of arrest of the applicant, 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 Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶21

(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 office.

¶22

(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.

¶23

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicant.

¶24

Order Date :- 8.12.2023 Fhd

¶25

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

Laveesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laveesh 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

Sudha Vs State of U.P.

Hari Singh Vs State of U.P.

Vakil Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Kumar Dixit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nijam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Pratap Chand Vs State of U.P. and Another