The Allahabad High Court rejected an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. citing the gravity of the offence (IPC 306) involving the suicide of a minor, the need for custodial interrogation, and the likelihood of influencing the investigation.
Prayer for anticipatory bail refused and application rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3342 of 2023
Applicant :- Mukesh @ Jaully Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Malviya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dinesh Singh,Gauri Shankar Yadav
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Mukesh @ Jaully seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0485 of 2022, under Sections 306 IPC, Police Station Rasoolpur, District-Firozabad.
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 argued that investigation is going-on and till date no charge-sheet has been submitted against the accused applicant. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
It is mentioned in the FIR that the deceased had gone to the shop of the accused applicant to sell two batteries. The accused applicant had taken the aforesaid batteries but did not pay anything to the deceased and asked him to wait for a long time. The deceased remained at the shop of the accused and despite his repeated demands for money nothing was paid by the accused applicant rather he was abused and confined by the accused applicant and he was also threatened for his life. The deceased was gentle boy of a tender age and was very much depressed with the behavior of the present accused applicant and in a state of depression and on the provocation of the accused applicant he took his scooty and went to the railway line and jumped before the train and committed suicide. During course of the investigation the
statement of eye-witnesses have been recorded, who have confirmed the fact that the deceased had gone to sell the batteries to the shop of the accused applicant where he was keep awaited for long and nothing was paid to him. The CCTV footage and video were also collected by the I.O. which prima facie corroborate the aforesaid facts. The investigation of the case is going on. The death of gentle boy of a tender age is involved in the matter and from the materials available on record it appears that the custodial interrogation of the present accused applicant is required.
In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled held 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.
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, I deem it not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. Prayer made in the application is refused.
The anticipatory bail application is rejected .
Order Date :- 11.4.2023 Fhd
Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail is appropriate in a case involving suicide of a minor provoked by the accused.
Whether the circumstances justify refusing anticipatory bail despite the applicant's claim of innocence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mukesh @ Jaully
State of U.P.
Nalin Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
