Allowed

Ram Singh and 5 Others. v. State of U.P

Allahabad HC30 Jan 2023ABAIL/16903/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Court No. 77 converted an interim anticipatory bail order into an absolute order pending investigation for six applicants. The case involved accusations of attempted murder and rioting. While the bail for applicant No. 5 was initially rejected due to a specific role in firing, the order was made absolute for all applicants upon continued cooperation.

What did the court decide?

The interim anticipatory bail order dated 29.9.2021 is made absolute pending submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to conditions regarding interrogation attendance and trav

Ram Singh and 5 Others. Vs State of U.P — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 16903 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Singh And 5 Others. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Goyal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manish Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Shubham Kumar, holding brief of Mr. Ashish Goyal, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 218 of 2021, under section 147, 148, 149, 307, 506 IPC, Police Station-Shamshabad, District Agra, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶7

On 29.9.2021, Coordinate Bench of this Court, while granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant, has passed following order :-

¶8

(1) Shri Manish Yadav, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of complainant and has produced his Vakalatnama before the Court. Since this case has been filed online, therefore, he is directed to file his Vakalatnama through e-mode within 48 hours. Heard Shri Ashish Goyal, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A and also perused the record.

¶9

(2) The instant application is being moved by the applicants namely, Ram Singh, Narendra, Bhagwan Singh, Jite, Bhupendra @ Plaza and Shailendra invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. that they have every reason to believe that they may be arrested on the accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence in connection with Case Crime No.218 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Shamshabad, District-Agra.

¶10

(3) From the record, it is evident that the applicants have approached this Court straightaway without getting their anticipatory bail rejected from the Court of Sessions.

¶11

(4) Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn attention of the Court to Clause-7 of Section 438 Cr.P.C. (U.P. Act No.4 of 2019), which read thus :

¶12

"(7) If an application under this section has been made by any person to the High Court, no application by the same person shall be entertained by the Court of Session."

¶13

(5) After interpreting the aforesaid clause, it is clear that the Legislature in its own wisdom bestowed two avenues upon the accused with a rider that if the accused has chosen to come to the High Court straightaway, then he would not be relegated back to exhaust his remedy before the Court of Session first. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ankit Bharti and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020(3) ADJ 575 in which the Bench has directed to spell out the extraordinary and special reasons for coming to the High Court. After perusal of those pleadings/reasons in this regard, this Court is satisfied that the reasons mentioned therein are quite convincing to entertain the present anticipatory bail application before this Court itself.

¶14

(6) Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

¶15

(7) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have got no criminal antecedents and they have not undergone any imprisonment after conviction by any court of law in relation to any cognizable offence previously. An assurance was also advanced by learned counsel for the applicants on behalf of the applicants that they would render all requisite co-operation and assistance in the process of law and with the investigating agency and shall not create any hindrance to reach to its logical conclusion and shall not flee away from the course of justice.

¶16

(8) Learned counsel for the applicants have strenuously argued that the applicants have been made target just to besmirch their reputation and belittle them in the public estimate by the informant. Number of arguments were advanced by learned counsel for the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the accusation made in the FIR against the applicants by the informant. Learned counsel for the applicants has also relied upon the judgements in the cases of Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273; Joginder Kumar vs State of U.P. and others (1994) 4 SCC 260 and Sanaul Haque vs State of U.P. and another, 2008 Cri. LJ 1998, to buttress their contentions.

¶17

(9) In this backdrop of legal as well as factual proposition, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the present F.I.R. was lodged by Jagvir Singh, who himself is an accused of Case Crime No.355 of 2018, u/s 307 I.P.C. and is facing the prosecution. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that in order to mount pressure and to have a truce with the applicant, the complainant has lodged the present F.I.R. against five named accused-applicants attributing the role of firing over the injured, specifically to applicant No.5 Shailendra. In this scenario and factual background, keeping in view the specific role of firing attributed to applicant no.5 Shailendra, this anticipatory bail application with regard to him stands REJECTED. So far applicant nos.1 to 5 are concerned, keeping in view the general role attributed to all of them, they have made out a case for interim protection.

¶18

(10) Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application by mentioning that though the applicants have got no criminal antecedents but there is nothing on record to satisfy that the police personnel are after the applicants to arrest them. The alleged apprehension on behalf of applicants is imaginary and unfounded one. Learned A.G.A. has also submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the applicants are not entitled for any relaxation from this Court.

¶19

(11) After the close scrutiny of Section 438 Cr.P.C.(U.P. Act No.4 of 2019) and its relevant clauses, the Court is satisfied that the applicants have made out the case for interim order protecting the liberty of applicants in connection with aforesaid case crime pending investigation.

¶20

(12) Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may be adversely affect the investigation and subsequent stage of the case, the Court directs that in the event of arrest of the applicants no.1 to 5 in aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer till the submission of report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer with the conditions that :

¶21

(i) The applicants no.1 to 5 shall make themselves available for the interrogation by the police as and when required. The Investigating Officer of the case would give 48 hours prior notice or telephonically inform the concerned accused-applicant to remain available to him/them for the purposes of interrogation and the accused-applicants are obliged to abide by such directions.

¶22

(ii) The applicants no.1 to 5 shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threats or comments to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the correct facts to the court or to the police officer.

¶23

(iii) The Investigating Officer of the case would make all necessary endeavour to gear up the investigation in utmost transparent and professional way and would try to conclude the same within a maximum period of 90 days. During this period the accused-applicants would not leave the State of Uttar Pradesh without informing the Investigating Officer of the case and sharing their contact numbers.

¶24

(iv) In the event the applicants no.1 to 5 are having their passports, they will have to surrender the same before the concerned SP/SSP of the District till the submission of report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C.

¶25

(13) In the event, the applicants no.1 to 5 breach or attempt to breach any of the aforesaid conditions or wilfully violate above conditions or abstains themselves from the investigation, it would be open for the Investigating Officer or the concerned authority to apply before the court of Session for cancellation of interim protection and the Court of Session has every liberty and freedom to revoke the anticipatory bail after recording the reasons for the same.

¶26

(14) While entertaining the instant anticipatory bail application before this Court, there is no concrete material on record except the canvassed

¶27

apprehension of the applicants on their arrest and the severity of accusation made in the FIR against them. After being satisfied on the limited material, the interest/liberty of the applicants is protected by this Court with aforesaid riders during the course of investigation, after recording its nascent satisfaction. However, continuance of instant interim protection or ultimate fate of instant application would be decided, subject to the counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. and the material brought on record against the applicants during the investigation.

¶28

(15) Learned A.G.A. should file counter affidavit soon after submission of report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. or 90 days, whichever is earlier.

¶29

(16) Life of the instant protection would continue till the submission of charge sheet or 90 days, whichever is earlier.

¶30

(17) List this anticipatory bail application after two months before appropriate Court."

¶31

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that investigation is still going on. Till date, no charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. The applicants are cooperating with the investigation and did not misuse the liberty of aforesaid interim anticipatory bail which was granted on 29.9.2021 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.

¶32

Learned AGA for the State does not dispute the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the appellant.

¶33

In view of the above, aforesaid interim anticipatory bail order dated 29.9.2021 is made absolute till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on the terms and conditions as indicated in the above order dated 29.9.2021.

¶34

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶35

Order Date :- 30.1.2023 S. Singh

¶36

Digitally signed by :- SAVITA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Singh and 5 Others. v. State of U.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Singh and 5 Others. 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

Madan Kumar Soni Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Zubair and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kishun Dev Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepanshu Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Annu Vs State of U.P.