Disposed

Anjesh Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2023ABAIL/2232/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court observed that the case is not a fit case for granting bail. The court directed the competent court to decide the pending bail application in strict compliance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the application for the disposal of the matter. Attempted to direct the competent court to consider the pending bail application in strict compliance with the Satender Kumar Antil judgment.

Anjesh Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2232 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Anjesh Kumar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Aslam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants - Anjesh Kumar, Smt. Pinki, Parvindra and Ishwar Kumar in Case Crime No. 37 of 2022 under Sections 420, 120B, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Rampur Maniharan, District- Saharanpur.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have no concern with the present matter. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. It is further submitted that charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter. Applicants’ case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that if the applicants is enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the liberty. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest any time.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer.

¶9

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.

¶10

In this matter, as is evident from the record, offences levelled against the applicants are of Sections 420, 120B, 506 IPC, which are punishable with the imprisonment upto seven years. The applicants have accorded their co-operation in the investigation. 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

¶12

end of trial.

¶13

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.

¶14

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 applicants till the end of the trial.

¶15

However, it is observed that the bail application of the applicants, 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 .

¶16

It is further directed that the 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 judgement 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. The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶17

Order Date :- 4.4.2023 PS

¶18

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

Anjesh Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjesh Kumar and 3 Others 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

Udayveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Praveen Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shobha Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tahir Vs State of U.P.

Vivek Vs State of U.P.

Banshi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another