Allowed

Rajeev Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2023ABAIL/5609/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court allowed the application for bail in Case Crime No. 258 of 2021. The applicant is to surrender a personal bond and two sureties within stipulated limitations including conditions for investigation and court attendance.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties with conditions to cooperate with investigation and appear for criminal proceedings.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:134263

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5609 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sai Girdhar,Anjul Dwivedi,Vandana Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.258 of 2021 under Sections 409, 419, 420 IPC, Police Station Chetganj, District Varanasi.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. He further submits that similarly placed co-accussed Pyush Kumar Baranwal has already been obtained anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.12468 of 2022,who has criminal history of 12 cases and the copy of the same has been placed on record. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 24 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. He further submits that since the similarly placed co accused accused person has already been granted anticipatory bail, the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail. Applicant has no criminal history.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not dispute with the aforesaid fact.

¶10

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶11

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Rajeev Kumar Singh involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.

¶13

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶16

(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶17

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶18

(vii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶19

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of

¶20

anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶21

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of.

¶22

Order Date :- 7.7.2023/A.

¶23

Digitally signed by :- AFAQ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajeev Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Kumar 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

Virpal Vs State of U.P through Prin. Sec. (Home) and 2 Others

Sonam @ Lalu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Pal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Bablu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others