Disposed

Sattar v. State of U.P. thr. its Sec. Home U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Apr 2023ABAIL/2252/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed anticipatory bail application. Court held the applicant's case is not fit for bail till trial but directed the court to decide the regular bail application in compliance with Satender Kumar Antil principles.

What did the court decide?

Case disposed; anticipatory bail denied; lower court directed to consider bail application complying with Supreme Court precedents.

Sattar Vs State of U.P. thr. its Sec. Home 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. - 2252 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Sattar

¶4

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thr. Its Sec. Home U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Laloo Yadav,Kiran Rani,Manoj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kamlesh Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Sattar in Case Crime No. 80 of 2022 under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C., Police Station- Naugawan Sadat, District - Amroha.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has no concern with the present matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter. Applicant's case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Criminal history of the applicant is explained in the affidavit. It is further submitted that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest any time.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer.

¶10

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

¶11

In this matter, as is evident from the record, offences levelled against the applicant are of Sections 420, 406 IPC, which are punishable with the imprisonment upto seven years. The applicant has accorded his co-operation in the investigation. In Sushila

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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 the trial.

¶16

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 .

¶17

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

¶18

matter. The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶19

Order Date :- 7.4.2023 Fhd

¶20

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sattar v. State of U.P. thr. its Sec. Home U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sattar v. State of U.P. thr. its Sec. Home 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

Mohammad Kasif Vs State of U.P.

Priyanka Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Kumar Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Another

Faizan Alam and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jaan Mohammad Vs State of U.P.

Vaishnavi Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and Another