Disposed

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

Allahabad HC6 Apr 2023ABAIL/3102/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court held that the case was not a fit one for bail. The court disposed of the application while directing the Court concerned to consider it compliant with Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of with direction to Court concerned to consider bail application per Satender Kumar Antil guidelines.

Anil Kumar Chaudhary 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. - 3102 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Anil Kumar Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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 - Anil Kumar Chaudhary in Case Crime No.268 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 5061 I.P.C. & Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Jewar, District - Gautam Buddha Nagar.

¶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 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. & Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, 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 behaviour of the accused,

¶12

continue after filing of the charge sheet till 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, 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.

¶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 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 judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in letter and spirit, particularly complying with the order dated 21.03.2023 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid matter.

¶17

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶18

Order Date :- 6.4.2023 Zafar

¶19

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Chaudhary 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

Sabrez @ Munna Metro Vs State of U.P.

Manu Vs State of U.P.

Kanha Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohammad Kasif Vs State of U.P.

Priyanka Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Cheenu @ Sachin Vs State of U.P.