Allowed

Jhamman v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Jul 2023ABAIL/1645/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Jhamman in a case involving affray and public nuisance under the IPC and Pandemic Act. The applicant alleged no credible evidence, noting co-accused already held bail. The court found it a fit case for bail till trial conclusion.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties and adherence to specified conditions including no tampering with evidence, w

Jhamman Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:141779

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1645 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Jhamman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lalit Kumar Srivastava,Abhishek Srivastava

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

¶8

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Jhamman in connection with Case Crime No.369 of 2020, under Sections 147,148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 143,188, 269, 270, 336 and 308 I.P.C. along with Section 3/4 Pandemic Act, P.S. Fatehabad, District Agra.

¶9

As per prosecution case, two parties indulged in brick batting, stone pelting and abusive words, flouting the orders under Section 145 Cr.P.C. as well as Covid norms. The dispute did not subside even when the police intervened and they kept on clashing, therefore, an F.I.R. under Sections 147,148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 143,188, 269, 270, 336 and 308 I.P.C. along with Section 3/4 Pandemic Act was lodged.

¶10

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Charge sheet in the matter has been submitted. Criminal history of the applicant is explained in the affidavit. It is further submitted that co-accused Chaturi Singh and Prashant Gupta have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 622 of 2023 by order dated 1.2.2023 and in Cr. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11768 of 2022 by order dated 25.11.2022 respectively. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by learned A.G.A. however, the fact of grant of anticipatory bail to the coaccused whose case stands on the same footing could not be denied.

¶12

It reveals from the perusal of the record that no process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant till date and he has cooperated during the investigation.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant 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 applicant till conclusion of trial in the matter.

¶17

The anticipatory bail application is allowed accordingly.

¶18

In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his 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 :-

¶19

i. 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.

¶20

ii. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶21

iii.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.

¶22

iv.The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicant in accordance with law.

¶24

Order Date :- 17.7.2023 Fhd

¶25

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jhamman v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jhamman 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

Veer Singh @ Jai Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Kumar Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Haresh Kumar Kushwah Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Kaushar Vs State of U.P. and Another