Dismissed

Shahid v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2023ABAIL/2058/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge Court in Allahabad disposed of an anticipatory bail application under S. 438 Cr.P.C. While explaining principles laid down by the Apex Court, it held the applicant was not a fit case for bail till the end of trial.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail refused; objection taken on merits is not expressed; applicant directed to approach higher court if bail application fails.

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

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2058 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Shahid Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Keshari Nath Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Shahid seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.315 of 2017, under Sections 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, Police Station Bhagatpur, District Moradabad.

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

In this matter, it reveals that after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance has also been taken by the Court concerned.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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 not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the end of trial. The prayer made in the application is refused.

¶14

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 .

¶15

It is further directed that the learned court concerned, while considering the bail application of the applicant in the light of Satender Kumar Antil case (supra), shall pass an order strictly in compliance of the directions given in the aforesaid judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in letter and spirit, particularly complying with the order dated 21.3.2023 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid matter.

¶16

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶17

Order Date :- 13.4.2023 ss

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shahid v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahid 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

Shyambir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sant Prakash Goel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prashant and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagdish Prasad and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dau Dayal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit Vs State of U.P through principal Secretary Home Government