Allowed

Amarik and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2023ABAIL/13755/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to four applicants in a case involving allegations of brick-batting, arson, and firing. The applicants undertook to cooperate with the investigation and complied with standard conditions including appearing in court and not tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released forthwith on anticipatory bail pending trial subject to personal bond, two sureties, and standard conditions.

Amarik and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:235677

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13755 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Amarik And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Pratap Singh,Vishal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Shrawan Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ravindra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No.349 of 2023 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 307 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act at Police StationBabugarh, District Hapur with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶9

As per prosecution story, two parties were found involved in brick-batting, arsoning and fighting with each other by the police on 15.11.2023. It is alleged that the co-accused Sudhir is stated to have fired from the CMP at the police party which did not hit anybody.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. In the present case, there is no injury report to suggest that any person has sustained injuries. The allegations of firing are vague. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicants. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they have co-operated in the investigation and are ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶12

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicants are liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶13

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants- Amarik, Manish, Neeshu @ Priyanshu and Babu @ Tushal be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i). that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

(ii). that 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 or tamper with the evidence;

¶16

(iii). that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶17

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶18

(v). that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶19

(vi). that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶20

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶21

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶22

Order Date :- 13.12.2023

¶23

Ravi Kant

¶24

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

¶25

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

Amarik and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarik and 3 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nati @ Lallu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Rekha Devi Vs State of U.P.

Danveer Vs State of U.P.

Dependra Dhar Dubey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Vs State of U.P. and Another