Allowed

Sunil Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Aug 2023ABAIL/3423/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Sunil Kumar Pandey regarding charges under Section 379 IPC and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The judgment observed that anticipatory bail can continue until the conclusion of the trial and granted bail subject to conditions including surrendering a passport.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application is allowed till the end of the trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each.

Sunil Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:158363

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3423 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Narayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Narendra Pratap Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant - Sunil Kumar Pandey in connection with Case Crime No.41 of 2019, under Sections 379 IPC and 3/4 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station Khorabar, District Gorakhpur.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. He has been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. The investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed. It is further submitted that the applicant has been cooperative during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that no custodial interrogation is required in this matter from the applicant as the offences alleged against the applicant are punishable with the imprisonment for a maximum period of seven years.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶10

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,

¶12

depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, 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 a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till end of the trial in the matter.

¶15

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶16

In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of the trial on his 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 :-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall make himself available before the court concerned on the date fixed in the matter;

¶18

(ii) The applicant 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 / her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 3.8.2023 / ss

¶22

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

Sunil Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Pandey 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

Nagelal Sonkar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Gajla Devi Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Amanur Rehman Vs State of U.P.

Khalid Vs State of U.P.

Krishna Bihari Srivastava Vs State of U.P.. and Another