Allowed

Girjesh Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Aug 2023ABAIL/4604/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court examined an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The allegations involved assault and disharmony at a restaurant. The court noted the applicant cooperated with the investigation and no serious injuries were reported. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding the nature of the offence and role of the applicant, the court found it a fit case for bail until t

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed till filing of police report. Accused released on personal bond with conditions of regular interrogation and non-interference with witnesses.

Girjesh Singh Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:166897

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4604 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Girjesh Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Girjesh Singh seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 202 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 307, 308, 427, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Khorabar, District- Gorakhpur.

¶8

It is alleged in the FIR that on 8.3.2023 at about 2.00 pm accused applicant along with other accused persons came to the restaurant of the informant and ordered for chicken, when they were informed that restaurant was closed they abusing the staff of the restaurant, made assault upon them and the manager/ informant of the restaurant. FIR was lodged and investigation started.

¶9

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that no occurrence as alleged in the FIR has occurred. Only simple injuries have been caused to the injured persons and in the x-ray report of the informant/ injured no adversity has been discovered. Investigation is going on in the matter and the applicant is cooperating with the I.O. It is further submitted that co-accused, namely, Tushar Prasad, had already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 24.05.2023 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.4870 of 2023 and the role of the accused applicant is similar to that of co-accused, therefore, the accused applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶11

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has 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.

¶12

In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶13

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 filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶14

9. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶15

In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

¶18

facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶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, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicant.

¶21

Order Date :- 18.8.2023 Shivangi

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Girjesh Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girjesh Singh v. State of U.P.

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

Tarun Bishnoi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jakir @ Chhabbis Vs State of U.P.

Ranvijay Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Akash Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Tikshna Pal Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another