Allowed

Jai Narayan Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2023ABAIL/2482/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants till the end of trial in a case involving offences related to murder and unlawful assembly. The court relied on the Supreme Court's jurisprudence that anticipatory bail can extend to the conclusion of trial if the accused cooperates with the investigation and satisfies the requisite conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; anticipatory bail granted till end of trial subject to personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and standard conditions.

Jai Narayan Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2482 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Jai Narayan Mishra And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vindhyachal Singh,Raj Mangal Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicants - Jai Narayan Mishra and Raj Narayan Mishra in connection with Case Crime No.502 of 2017, under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 352 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Farrukhabad, District Farrukhabad.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have no concern with the present matter. They have been falsely implicated in this case. It is a no injury case. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. Applicant's case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that earlier vide order dated 4.7.2017 passed in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.11879 of 2017, applicants have been granted interim protection till submission of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. Now, the charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. If the applicants are enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the liberty. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest by the police any time, as non-bailable warrants have been issued against the applicants.

¶9

On the other hand learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer.

¶10

It appears from the perusal of the record that on the date of incident, the applicants alongwith some other co-accused persons, after forming unlawful assembly, went to the place of occurrence with intention to kill the informant and his brothers. Fire was made by the present applicants alongwith other co-accused, but however, they rescued and offence was committed on account of some dispute between the children of respective families. However, no injury has been caused to any person in the said incident. Earlier,

¶11

protection was granted to the applicants vide order dated 4.7.2017 passed in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.11879 of 2017 till submission of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. The then petitioners were protected from being taken no coercive action against them. Now charge-sheet has been filed in the matter and it is brought to the notice of the Court that the applicants have cooperated during the course of investigation. Criminal history of the applicant Raj Narayan Mishra has been explained by way of supplementary affidavit.

¶12

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.

¶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 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 end of trial in the matter.

¶16

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their 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 :-

¶18

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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

The applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶20

The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶21

The applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶22

In case of default of any of the conditions, same may be a ground for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicant.

¶23

Order Date :- 10.4.2023 ss

¶24

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

Jai Narayan Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Narayan Mishra 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

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

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

Jaan Mohammad Vs State of U.P.

Pratyush Rajvanshi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saiyad Itrat Husain Vs State of U.P.

Raju Kumar Vs State of U.P.