Hero Urf Sanjeev Vs State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 77

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1671 of 2023

Applicant :- Hero Urf Sanjeev Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Pundir,Rekha Pundir,Sunil Vashisth

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Sunil Vashisth, 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.371 of 2016, under Sections 420 IPC and Section 60 of Excise Act, Police Station-Sardhana, DistrictMeerut, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that an FIR was lodged against as many as five named accused persons including the applicant with the allegations regarding recovery of illegal foreign liquor, which was meant for purpose of sale in Arunachal Pradesh.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants 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 there is no prima facie evidence against the applicant and the applicant has no concern with the alleged recovery shown in the first information report. The applicant has not been arrested on the spot and nothing has been recovered from his possession. He further submits that the offences alleged against the applicant are punishable below seven years and triable by the court of Magistrate. The applicant has criminal history of four cases, which has satisfactorily been explained in paragraph no.19 of the affidavit accompanying the bail application. 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 has also been touched upon length. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the

¶10

investigation and is 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 applicant. He further submits that though the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant but no such material has been collected by the Investigating Officer to show complicity of the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶12

On due consideration to the argument advanced by learned A.G.A., perused the entire records and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, 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 applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgement of the Apex Court.

¶13

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

¶14

Let the applicant- Hero Urf Sanjeev 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:-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

The applicant shall not leave India during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶18

The applicant shall surrender their passports, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. Their passports will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.

¶19

In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the trial Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and

¶20

judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1.

¶21

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;

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

Order Date :- 14.2.2023 Jitendra/-

¶25

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

Hero Urf Sanjeev v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hero Urf Sanjeev v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Shankar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naseer Vs State of U.P. and Another

Harendra Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Abrar Khan Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Urf Pintu Nishad and Another Vs State of U.P.

Bablu @ Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P.