Allowed

Bachhu Singh and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2023ABAIL/13605/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application in a case involving offences of affray, voluntarily causing hurt, and criminal intimidation. Applicants were directed to furnish a bond and comply with conditions for future arrest.

What did the court decide?

Applicants Bachhu Singh and Sunil Singh granted anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties and compliance of standard conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:238036

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13605 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Bachhu Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A as well as perused the material available on record.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.267 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 336, 324, 325, 307 I.P.C. & 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S.Dauki, District- Agra.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He submitted that the present FIR was lodged by police personnel. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. It is a counter blast case. He submitted that there are six persons in the present FIR and during investigation two persons have been exonerated. He submitted that earlier, the applicants have approached this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 12463 of 2023 and 13058 of 2022 and co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 10.01.2023 and 28.03.2023 has granted interim protection to the applicants till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. He submitted the earlier, the applicants have also lodged an FIR against the private opposite parties for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 354K, 354Kh, 504, 506, 294, 307 I.P.C. where charge sheet has been submitted. He submitted that as per injury report, all injuries are simple in nature. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that applicants have apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicants are released on anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶9

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.

¶10

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 applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶11

In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants- Bachhu Singh and Sunil Singh, involved in the aforesaid 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:-

¶12

(1) 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.

¶13

(2) 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.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(5) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for

¶17

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.

¶18

(6) 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.

¶19

(7) 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.

¶20

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 applicants.

¶21

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands allowed .

¶22

Order Date :- 15.12.2023 Krishna*

¶23

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

Bachhu Singh and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bachhu Singh 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

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

Jayprakash Vs State of U.P.

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