Allowed

Satendra Singh Tomar v. State of U.P. 2 Others

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2023ABAIL/14298/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application regarding a case involving Sections 498A, 307 IPC, the High Court granted bail to the applicant. The court emphasized the applicant's lack of criminal history and co-operation with the investigation, relying on Supreme Court precedent to approve the bail request.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of like amount.

Satendra Singh Tomar Vs State of U.P. 2 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 14298 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Satendra Singh Tomar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Nipun Singh,Vivek Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jitendra Rana

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

The case is taken in the revised call.

¶6

Heard Mr. Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.290 of 2021, under Sections 323, 307, 406, 506, 498A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Noida Sector 24, District-Commissionerate Gautam Buddh Nagar, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶8

Earlier on 26.08.2021, the following order was passed, granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant:-

¶9

"Heard Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jitendra Rana, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant -Satendra Singh Tomar, seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0290 of 2021, under Sections 323, 307, 406, 506, 498A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Noida Sector-24, District - Commissionerate Gautam Budh Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and the alleged offence does not fall within the periphery of Section 438(6) of Cr.P.C. The marriage of applicant was solemnized with opposite party no.3 on 19.11.2019. After lodging this FIR, a compromise was arrived between the applicant and opposite party no.3, in which it was agreed that applicant and opposite party no.3 will live at Noida. The opposite party no.3 out of her own free will and consent will take all her Stridhan. Copy of the list of the articles also annexed as Annexure No.3 to the affidavit filed in support of anticipatory bail application. The allegations made in the FIR are bald. There is no medical examination report with regard to the injury as alleged by the opposite party no.3. The applicant has no criminal history and undertakes that applicant will not flee from judicial process.

¶12

Learned A.G.A and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently

¶13

opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the accused-applicant and contended that opposite party no.3 was medically examined in private hospital and in this regard he wants to file counter affidavit.

¶14

Put up this case on 27.09.2021 as fresh before the appropriate Bench, and by the said date, counter affidavit be filed by learned AGA as well as counsel for informant.

¶15

Taking into consideration the nature of accusation and lack of criminal antecedents of the applicant and there being no possibility of his fleeing from justice, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on interim anticipatory bail in this case, at this stage.

¶16

In the event of arrest of the applicant - Satendra Singh Tomar involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on interim anticipatory bail during trial, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below on the following conditions:

¶17

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

¶18

(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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.

¶20

(iv) In default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officers shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant."

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He further submits that the charge sheet has been submitted in the present case on 12.09.2021 and the applicant has always co-operated in the investigation and has not misused the liberty of aforesaid interim anticipatory bail, which was granted to him on 26.08.2021 by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court. He further submits that the entire allegations contained in the FIR is absolutely false and vague as it is a case of no injury. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegation made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon length. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application

¶22

for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶23

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but does not dispute the factual aspects of the matter.

¶24

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

¶25

In view of above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶26

Let the applicant- Satendra Singh Tomar involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial 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:-

¶27

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶28

The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶29

The applicant shall appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶30

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶31

That 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶32

The applicant 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

¶33

liberty of his bail and proceed against him/her/them in accordance with law.

¶34

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶35

Order Date :- 10.1.2023 Jitendra/-

¶36

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

Satendra Singh Tomar v. State of U.P. 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satendra Singh Tomar v. State of U.P. 2 Others

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

Smt Jyoti Rastogi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sahil Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akhlakh Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Sonvir Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sultan and 11 Others Vs State of U.P.

Veer Singh @Dharmendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.