Allowed

Radha Charan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2023ABAIL/5742/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Radha Charan in a case under the Essential Commodities Act involving recovery of wheat and rice. The applicant was granted bail subject to standard conditions including surrender for interrogation and cooperation in investigation.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial by furnishing personal bond and two sureties.

Radha Charan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:137926

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5742 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Radha Charan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sonu Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Sonu Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Varun Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.349 of 2018, registered under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act at Police Station- Akrabad, District Aligarh with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

As per prosecution story, a heavy amount of wheat and rice was recovered from three vehicles by the police and 90 bags of rice were recovered from the vehicle of the applicant on 30.05.2018.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has further stated that no offence has been committed by the applicant. The said vehicle was driven by his driver. The applicant has no vicarious liability for the offence committed by the said driver. No offence under E.C. Act is made out against the applicant. Learned counsel has further stated that the criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶13

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Radha Charan be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

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

¶15

(ii). that 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 or tamper with the evidence;

¶16

(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶17

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶18

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶19

(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶20

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶21

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶22

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 12.7.2023 Ravi Kant

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Radha Charan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radha Charan 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

Baburam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar Raw Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nazim Vs State of U.P.

Kailash Solanki @ Kailash Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Masoom Ali @ Syed Masoom Mehdi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Himanshi Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Another