Allowed

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

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2023ABAIL/5770/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a criminal case involving serious allegations, the court, without expressing opinion on merits due to cross-complaints and prior bail to informants, granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions including personal bond, cooperation with investigation, and adherence to aperture court appearance mandates.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement on anticipatory bail furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each and complying with specified conditions.

Dinesh Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:134403

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5770 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Dinesh Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Karunesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijay Kumar Sharma

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants today in the Court, the same is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Karunesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vijay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶8

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.102 of 2022, under Sections 308, 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 30 of Arms Act, P.S.- Bansgaon, District- Gorakhpur, during the pendency of investigation.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that it is a cross case where the applicants have also received injury and they have lodged F.I.R. against the informant under Section 307 I.P.C.. He submitted that three persons received injury from the side of the applicant and three persons also received injury from the side of the informant and the applicant has also lodged F.I.R. against the informant under Section 307 I.P.C.. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that informants' side approached this Court in anticipatory bail and this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the informants' side, namely, Amaresh Shukla, Rajesh Shukla and Satish Shukla in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.4871 of 2022, 4873 of 2022 and 4947 of 2022 vide orders dated 18.08.2022. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted in paragraph no.3 of the supplementary affidavit that complainant has criminal history of two cases. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the applicants have no criminal history.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants. 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 are not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶11

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicants, they are 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.

¶12

In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants- D inesh Singh, Ravikar Singh and Diwakar Vikram 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:-

¶13

(1) The applicants 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.

¶14

(2) 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.

¶15

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

¶16

(4) The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶17

(5) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for

¶18

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.

¶19

(6) In case, the applicants 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 .

¶20

(7) The applicants 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 their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶21

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 anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 7.7.2023 Krishna*

¶24

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Singh and 2 Others 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

Rajeev Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Bablu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others