Disposed¶16

Guddu Thakur @ Ajay Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Mar 2023ABAIL/3059/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, order dated 28.3.2023, CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. 3059 of 2023; applicant Guddu Thakur @ Ajay Pratap Singh; State of U.P.; Case Crime No. 43 of 2013, Sections 379, 411, 419, 420, 471 IPC, PS Etmadpur, Agra; anticipatory bail refused (application disposed); Sushila Aggarwal (2020) 5 SCC 1 relied on; Satender Kumar Antil (2022 SCC OnLine SC 825) applied for future bail consideration; counsel: Raghubir Singh for applicant, G.A. for opposite party.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail not granted; the application was disposed of with a direction that any bail application moved by the applicant be considered and decided by the Court concerned in accordance with Satender Kumar Antil, including compliance with the Supreme Court order dated 23.3.2023. ¶16

Guddu Thakur @ Ajay Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be granted to the applicant Guddu Thakur @ Ajay Pratap Singh in Case Crime No. 43 of 2013 (Sections 379, 411, 419, 420, 471 IPC).

¶6

Court's answer

Considering the nature of accusation, role of the applicant and all attending facts and circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, this Court held it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the end of the trial.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

If the applicant moves a (regular) bail application, it 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.

¶15

Key takeaways

The Court concerned, while considering the bail application in light of Satender Kumar Antil, shall pass an order in strict compliance with the Supreme Court's directions, particularly its order dated 23.3.2023.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. sought by Guddu Thakur @ Ajay Pratap Singh in Case Crime No. 43 of 2013 under Sections 379, 411, 419, 420, 471 IPC, Police Station Etmadpur, District Agra; charge-sheet already submitted. Relying on Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Court (Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.) held that, given the nature of accusation and the applicant's role, it was not a fit case for anticipatory bail till the end of the trial, and disposed of the application, directing that any regular bail application be considered by the Court concerned strictly per Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825, including compliance with the Supreme Court's order dated 23.3.2023.

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3059 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Guddu Thakur @ Ajay Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raghubir Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the 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 applicant - Guddu Thakur @ Ajay Pratap Singh in Case Crime No. 43 of 2013 under Sections 379, 411, 419, 420, 471 I.P.C., Police StationEtmadpur, District - Agra.

¶7

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. 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.

¶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 applicant are of Sections 379, 411, 419, 420, 471 IPC, which are punishable with the imprisonment upto seven years. The applicant has accorded his 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 applicant till the end of the trial.

¶15

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 .

¶16

On the basis of request of the learned counsel for the applicant, 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 23.3.2023 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid matter. The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶17

Order Date :- 28.3.2023 Rajesh

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Guddu Thakur @ Ajay Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddu Thakur @ Ajay Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajat Alias Rajat Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivekanand Alias Vivek Rajput and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ghanshyam @ Ghanshyam Bhatt and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ranjit and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajveer Singh Vs State of U.P.

Affsarun Vs State of U.P.