Allowed

Jaspal and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Aug 2023ABAIL/3012/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge permitted anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC to four applicants in a private complaint case involving assault and robbery. The bail is valid till the conclusion of the trial subject to bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till the end of trial subject to personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties and standard conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:165061

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3012 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Jaspal And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants Jaspal, Smt. Sarvesh Devi, Arvind and Ranjeet seeking anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No. 355 of 2017, under Sections 323, 392, 504 IPC, Police Station Hasanpur, District Amroha.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. None is present for the opposite party no.2 despite service of notice.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. It is further submitted that no specific role has been assigned to the present applicants. Injuries received by the injured are simple in nature. Complainant and the applicant no.1 are real brothers and due to some family property dispute the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted that some criminal cases are pending between the parties. No process under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC has been issued against the applicants and the applicants have not been declared absconder. In case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

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

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

In a private complaint allegation of assault and robbery of Rs. 40,000/- were levelled against the applicants and the applicants were summoned to face trial for the offence under Sections 323, 392 and 504 IPC by the Court concerned vide order dated 26.10.2017.

¶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, likelihood 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

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till the end of trial.

¶17

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶18

In the event of arrest of the applicants, 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:-

¶19

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available before the Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the trial.

¶20

(ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

¶21

facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶22

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 16.8.2023

¶25

safi

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jaspal and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaspal 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

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

Ashish Pundhir and Another Vs State of U.P.

Anurag Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Shafique Khan @ Aadil Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shoaib Vs State of U.P. and Another

Madan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another