Allowed

Chiranjivi Bind and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2023ABAIL/13440/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to Chiranjiv Bind and Arun Kumar Bind in a case involving public peace violation. The court applied the Sushila Aggarwal guidelines, imposing conditions including cooperation with investigation and surrendering passports.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on anticipatory bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount subject to specific conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:235291

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13440 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Chiranjivi Bind And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Autar Bind Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ram Autar Bind, learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.206 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 342, 427, 436 I.P.C. & 7 C.L.A. Act, P.S.- Gopiganj, District- Bhadohi.

¶8

As per allegation in the FIR, five named and 100-120 unknown persons blocked the National Highway from whom the traffic arrangement was disturbed and public peace and harmony was infringed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is a no injury case. He submitted that the applicants are simply farmer, the applicants are neither leader nor they belong to any party and they have not given any speech. He submitted that at the time of alleged incident the applicants were not present on the spot, they were busy in a marriage ceremony in Mirzapur. He submitted that during investigation in the confessional statements of independent witness, namely, Durgesh Pasi, name of the applicants and 14 others persons came into light. He further submitted that one Mahendra Kumar and two unnamed, namely, Ramashankar and Ram Sajivan, who are not named in the FIR, have been granted anticipatory bail by the court below. The applicants have no criminal history. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that applicants have apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicants are released on anticipatory bail, they will

¶10

not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicants, they are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicants is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶12

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicants, they are 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 applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants- Chiranjiv Bind and Arun Kumar Bind , involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail 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 applicants 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 applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶16

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

¶17

(iv) The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶18

(v) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants.

¶19

(vi) In case, the applicants 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 applicants 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 their 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 stands allowed .

¶23

Order Date :- 12.12.2023 Krishna*

¶24

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

Chiranjivi Bind and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chiranjivi Bind and Another 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

Vishal Lohia Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pooran Singh Saini Vs State of U.P.

Sarves Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prince Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aushan Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another