Disposed

Ghanshyam @ Ghanshyam Bhatt and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Mar 2023ABAIL/16435/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application filed by Ghanshyam @ Ghanshyam Bhatt and three others, the court refused to grant anticipatory bail till the end of the trial. The court observed that the case, involving allegations under POCSO and IPC, required individual assessment by the lower court. The applicants were directed to approach the Court concerned for bail considerations as per relevant recent

What did the court decide?

Relief for anticipatory bail was refused; applicants directed to approach the Court concerned for consideration of bail application as per Satender Kumar Antil.

Ghanshyam @ Ghanshyam Bhatt and 3 Others Vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 16435 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ghanshyam @ Ghanshyam Bhatt And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nagendra Kumar Mishra,Lalit Kumar Srivastava,Prakash Kumar Shrivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants Shubham, Ghanshyam alias Ghanshyam Bhatt, Rabadi Devi alias Chandravati, Guddu alias Aniruddh Kumar Sharma seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0502 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 506 IPC, Police Station- Nawabganj, District -Prayagraj.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of their arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. The investigation of the case has been completed and chargesheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned. It has been submitted that in case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, the y shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶9

Present accused applicants are said to be the parents and brothers of the main accused Suraj, who is alleged to take with him the minor girl by inducement. Investigation of the case has been completed and charge sheet has been filed under Section 363, 366, 504, 120B I.P.C. and 16/17 POCSO Act against the accused persons Shubham, Ghanshyam alias Ghanshyam Bhatt, Rabadi Devi alias Chandravati, Guddu alias Aniruddh Kumar Sharma, however, one charge sheet under Section 363, 366A, 376, 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act was earlier filed against the main accused Shubham. It also revealed from the perusal of the record that the present accused persons have been assigned the role of criminal conspiracy and the main offence has been levelled against the main accused Shubham but the abducted girl is not traceable so far.

¶10

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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, llikelihood 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.

¶14

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 not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till the end of the trial.

¶15

However, it is observed that the bail application of the applicant, if moved, shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 .

¶16

The applicant stands disposed of accordingly.

¶17

Order Date :- 27.3.2023 Rajesh

¶18

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

Ghanshyam @ Ghanshyam Bhatt and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghanshyam @ Ghanshyam Bhatt 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

Mahendra Singh @ Chhunnu Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Braj Mohan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajat Alias Rajat Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivekanand Alias Vivek Rajput and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammed Shafi Vs State of U.P.