Allowed

Sriram v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 May 2023ABAIL/13475/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the single judge observed that since a co-accused was already granted bail, the applicant made out a case for parity. The application was allowed subject to standard conditions including furnishing a bond and cooperating with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed until submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.随地 subject to bond and cooperation conditions.

Sriram Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13475 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sriram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Girdhar Prasad Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Gopal Krishna Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Girdhar Prasad Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Shiv Dutt Shukla, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the records.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.41A of 2006, registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 218, 120-B and 34 IPC at Police Station- Sukhpura, District Ballia with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the coaccused person Umesh Chand Singh has already been granted anticipatory bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.10.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.1921 of 2020. Therefore, the present applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he will cooperate in the investigation failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

¶9

The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by them.

¶10

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground of parity.

¶11

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with following directions:-

¶12

(A) In the event of arrest of the applicant- Sriram involved in aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on his/her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned;

¶13

(B) 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;

¶14

(C) 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

¶15

(D) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶16

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.

¶17

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 5.5.2023 Ravi Kant

¶19

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sriram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sriram 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

Nathani Alias Pappu Vs State of U.P.

Mukeem and Another Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Kailash Narayan Tiwari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Mohan Swaroop

Madan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Bhanu Prakash Vishnoi Vs State of U.P.