Allowed

Raj Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P.and 2 Others

Allahabad HC25 May 2023ABAIL/5141/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 5141 of 2023, allowed an application filed by four accused persons. The court held that the case was fit for anticipatory bail till the conclusion of the trial, considering the nature of offenses, lack of process issued, and cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed till conclusion of trial upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties and complying with specific conditions regarding tampering, intimidation, and trave

Raj Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.and 2 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:116435

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5141 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Raj Kumar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Rai,Avesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicants- 1. Raj Kumar, 2. Ramnath, 3. Pratap and 4. Indrapal in connection with Case Crime No. 569 of 2022, under sections 323, 504, 506 and 308 IPC, P.S. Bahjoi, DistrictSambhal.

¶8

It is alleged in the FIR that on 23.10.2022 at about 9.00 pm all the accused applicants made an assault upon the informant, Gajram, his brother, Mahesh, Nihal Singh and Smt. Niraj wife of Mahesh with the aid of lathi, danda and they sustained injuries. Earlier FIR was lodged under Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.c. subsequently Section 308 I.P.C. was also added during course of investigation on the basis of the medical report and supplementary medical report of the injured persons.

¶9

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. It is further submitted that only general role has been assigned to all the accused persons in the FIR, no serious and grievous injuries have been caused to the injured. It is further submitted that the charge sheet into the matter has been filed and accused applicants have cooperated with the investigation. They have no criminal history. In case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

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

¶11

In this matter, as is evident from the record, offences levelled against the applicants are of Sections 323, 504, 506 and 308 IPC, which are punishable with the imprisonment upto seven years. It reveals from the perusal of the record that no process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicants till date and they have cooperated during the investigation. No custodial interrogation is required into the matter.

¶12

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.

¶13

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶14

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, 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.

¶15

Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants 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 applicants till conclusion of trial in the matter.

¶16

The anticipatory bail application is allowed accordingly.

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their 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 :-

¶18

i. 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

¶19

ii. The applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶20

iii.The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶21

iv.The applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicants in accordance with law.

¶23

Order Date :- 25.5.2023 Fhd

¶24

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raj Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P.and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P.and 2 Others

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

Smt Anushka Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Sher @ Shera Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Mohit @ Moti Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohammad Israr Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Vohra @ Rakesh Kumar Vohra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others