Allowed

Munish Kumar Rajpoot v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Aug 2023ABAIL/2074/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal anticipatory bail application filed by Munish Kumar Rajpoot in connection with offenses under the IPC, Essential Commodities Act, and I.T. Act. It held that given the applicant's cooperative demeanor and the nature of the case, anticipatory bail granted until the conclusion of trial.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of similar amount, subject to specific conditions regarding tampering, intimidation, co

Munish Kumar Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:171990

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2074 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Munish Kumar Rajpoot Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Munish Kumar Rajpoot in connection with Case Crime No. 581 of 2018, under sections 420, 467, 468, 34 IPC and 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955, & Section 65, 66 of I.T. Act, P.S. Hasanpur, District J.P. Nagar (Amroha).

¶8

It has been submitted 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. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

It is further submitted that the interim protection was granted to the accused applicant by this Court vide order dated 23.03.2023 and the same has not been misused by him so far. It is next submitted that co-accused, Ankur Rajput has already been granted anticipatory bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.07.2023 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.7512 of 2023, therefore, the accused applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail as the case of the accused applicant is similar to that of co-accused.

¶10

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

¶11

From perusal of the record, it appears that after filing of the charge sheet, now no custodial interrogation is required from the accused applicant and he has been cooperative with the I.O. of the

¶12

case during the course of 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 .

¶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 they have passport, the same shall be deposited by him 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 :- 24.8.2023 Shivangi

¶25

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

Munish Kumar Rajpoot v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munish Kumar Rajpoot 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

Rajkumari Vs State of U.P.

Rajul Vs State of U.P.

Sudama Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sarvendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Swayam Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another