Allowed

Rajendra Prasad and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2023ABAIL/14943/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for six applicants in a chargeable case involving assault and theft under the IPC, granting bail till the end of trial subject to specific bonds and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till the end of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties in the like amount.

Rajendra Prasad and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:163202

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 14943 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

None present on behalf of the informant even in the revised call. Learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today annexing the copies of the order-sheets of the court concerned is taken on record. Counter affidavit filed by the learned A.G.A. is on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶9

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicants - Rajendra Prasad, Dileep Kumar, Israwati, Amrawati, Ramlaut and Sudhakar seeking anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No.2724 of 2015 (Rajendra Prasad and others Vs. Satyaram), under Sections 452, 323, 504, 379, 149 IPC, Police Station Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar.

¶10

The applicants have been summoned on the basis of a complaint case wherein it is alleged that the accused applicants after entering into the house of the complaint, made an assault upon him and theft of some money was also made. The incident occurred on 3.5.2015 at about 9:00 a.m. and after recording the requisite evidence, applicants no.1, 3, 4, 5, & 6 were summoned to face trial under Sections 452, 323, 504, 149 IPC whereas applicant no.2 was summoned to face trial under sections 452, 323, 504, 379 IPC.

¶11

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of their arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. They have been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. It is further

¶12

submitted that earlier an interim protection by way of interim anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant vide order dated 28.9.2021 and same has not been misused by the applicants and they are cooperating with the trial court.

¶13

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶14

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶15

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶16

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶17

Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till end of the trial in the matter.

¶18

10. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶19

In the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid complaint case, they shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of the trial on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶20

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available before the court

¶21

concerned on the date fixed in the matter;

¶22

(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 him / her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶23

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶24

In case of default of any of the conditions, same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicants.

¶25

Order Date :- 9.8.2023 ss

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajendra Prasad and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prasad and 5 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

Saurabh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rani Devi Vs State of U.P.

Vikram Mavi Vs State of U.P.

Praful Srivastava Vs State of U.P. . and Another

Dipak Kumar Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another