Disposed

Bhanu @ Bhan Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Jun 2023ABAIL/5540/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged caste offences. While noting the Supreme Court's guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil, the court directed that applications filed within 15 days be disposed of expeditiously and forbade coercive action during this interim period.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail refused; directions issued for expeditious disposal of regular bail application if applied for within 15 days; prohibitory direction against coercive action for 15 days.

Bhanu @ Bhan Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:124894

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5540 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Bhanu @ Bhan Singh And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vipin Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Vipin Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.98 of 2019, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 308, 427, 504 IPC, Police Station Nibohra, District Agra during the pendency of investigation.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case, in fact, no such incident has taken place. The applicants have never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 28.06.2019 whereas the impugned FIR has been lodged on 01.07.2019 i.e. about 4 days of the alleged incident without any plausible explanation. He further submits that in the alleged incident, applicants' side have also sustained injuries. The impugned FIR has been lodge as a counter blast to the FIR lodged by father of applicant no.1 against the opposite party no.2 and his family members being Case Crime No.97 of 2019. He further submits that only general role has been assigned against all the accused persons except Hariom, who is assigned the role for assaulting injury to the injured Narayan. As per prosecution version, the main role has been assigned against Hariom, who has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 12.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.37649 of 2022, copy of the same has been filed as Annexure No.6 to the affidavit filed in support of application. The applicants are having no previous criminal history.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants and has submitted that the applicants have assaulted the

¶10

injured as a result of which the injured Laxmi Narayan has sustained injuries. The injured was medically examined by the doctor. Injured was also advised for CT Scan and X-ray as well. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicants, they are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicants is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶11

From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants.

¶12

After having very carefully examined, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the material brought on record, there is no justification for granting anticipatory bail to the applicants. Accordingly, the prayer to that extent is hereby refused.

¶13

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that directions may be given to the court below to consider the bail application of the applicants in view of the judgment in the case Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.

¶14

In the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for deciding of the bail application. For that purpose, the cases have been divided under four categories. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the trial courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid guidelines, while considering the bail application. This Court has no doubt, that as and when, the applicants approach the trial court for bail, the trial court shall definitely follow the directions given in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra).

¶15

However, considering the nature of the allegations and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court concerned within 15 days from today and apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra).

¶16

For a period of 15 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶17

However, in case, the applicants did not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, trial court will be at liberty to take coercive action against them in accordance with law.

¶18

With the above directions, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of finally.

¶19

Order Date :- 7.6.2023 Ajeet

¶20

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhanu @ Bhan Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanu @ Bhan Singh and 4 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

Vikas Vs State of U.P.

Aakash Vs State of U.P.

Sarurabh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raghuveer and Another Vs State of U.P.