Allowed

Jitendra Prasad Bari and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Aug 2023ABAIL/1895/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail granted to two applicants in a criminal case involving theft and cheating offenses. The court held it was a fit case for bail pending the filing of the investigation report, subject to standard bail conditions including a bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted until filing of police report under S. 173(2) Cr.P.C. on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties.

Jitendra Prasad Bari and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:172318

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1895 of 2023 Applicant :- Jitendra Prasad Bari And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shahroze Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants - Jitendra Prasad Bari and Prince Kumar in Case Crime No.44 of 2022, under Sections 379, 411, 413, 414, 467, 468, 472, 482, 483, 489, 120-B IPC and Section 207 of Motor Vehicle Act, Police Station - Jogiya Udaipur, District Siddharth Nagar.

¶6

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

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the abovementioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. It is further submitted that three persons caught by police with Scorpio Car and on the basis of their statement two other persons were also caught by the police and from them two stolen Bolero Cars, seven mobile phones and three motorcycles were recovered. On the basis of confessional statement, name of present applicants came into light and F.I.R. was lodged on 30.04.2022. It is further submitted that only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused persons of the case, the applicants have been falsely implicated. No incriminating article has been recovered from possession of the applicants or from a place under control of the present applicants. It is further submitted that the investigation is still going on. They have no criminal history to their credit. In case the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute this factual aspect of the case that the name of present accused-applicants has came into light on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused persons.

¶9

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held 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.

¶10

In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶11

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 the filing of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶12

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail till the filing of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶15

(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 office.

¶16

(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.

¶17

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicants.

¶18

Order Date :- 25.8.2023 Atul

¶19

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

Jitendra Prasad Bari and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Prasad Bari and Another 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

Sarvendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munish Kumar Rajpoot Vs State of U.P.

Swayam Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyapal Singh Deshwal Vs State of U.P.

Akhilesh Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sudha Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another