Allowed

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

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2023ABAIL/3987/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The learned Single Judge referred to Sushila Aggarwal case and allowed the anticipatory bail application of the applicants, directing them to furnish a personal bond with sureties and adhere to standard conditions to appear for trial proceedings without tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application was allowed upon furnishing personal bond with two sureties each for each named applicant.

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

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3987 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Brajmohan And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Akbar Shah Alam Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Mohd. Akbar Shah Alam Khan, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Nitin Kesarwani, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material available on record.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 651 of 2022, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 324 of IPC, Police Station Khatauli, District Muzaffarnagar, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the applicant nos.3 and 4 are the uncle-in-law of the informant and the applicant nos. 1 and 2 are the family members. They are stated to have assaulted the informant and his family members by barging into their house in the evening of 20.12.2022.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that they are maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and have apprehension of their arrest. They have nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has further stated that the FIR is itself delayed by one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The applicants belong to the family of bride and the informant and the niece of the applicant nos.3 & 4 had fallen apart, as such, the present FIR has been instituted to coerce them to give divorce to him.

¶9

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that the applicants have no criminal history. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed, they will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants and also the fact that the applicants have no criminal history.

¶11

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of " Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 ", the applicants are entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶12

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed .

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicants, Brajmohan, Brajveer, Satyaveer and Sharanveer , involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶14

i. that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

ii. that the applicants 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶16

iii. that the applicants shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶17

iv. that the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence are exempted;

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicants.

¶19

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶20

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶21

Order Date :- 26.4.2023 Siddhant

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brajmohan 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

Ravi Vs State of U.P.

Harshit Chaubey @ Abhishek Bhargav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jalim Vs State of U.P.

Anup Kumar Vs State of U.P and Another

Hasan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Ratna Mishra Vs State of U.P.