Allowed

Dileep Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2023ABAIL/6492/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous anticipatory bail application, the Allahabad High Court allowed bail to Dileep Kumar, alleging an untraced theft of an inverter where he was not named in the FIR. The Court held it was a fit case for bail till the filing of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., against a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties.

Dileep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:137398

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6492 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ranjan Krishna Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Dileep Kumar in Case Crime No.40 of 2023, under Sections 457, 380, 411, 413 IPC, Police Station - Utraon, District - Prayagraj.

¶8

It is alleged against the accused applicant that the inverter which was theft from the house of the informant was sold by other coaccused persons to him and the same was recovered by the police from his house and the applicant is not named in the F.I.R.

¶9

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on in the matter. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

It is further submitted that he carries on business of sale and purchase of inverter. It is next submitted that accused applicant is not named in the F.I.R. No allegation of theft has been levelled against him. It is next submitted that criminal history of accused applicant of one case has been explained.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer.

¶12

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held 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

¶13

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.

¶14

In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does no t mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶15

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant 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 applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. in the matter.

¶16

10. The application is allowed .

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶18

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

¶19

(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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶21

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicant.

¶22

Order Date :- 7.7.2023 Shivangi

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dileep Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dileep Kumar 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

Jai Prakash and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Satish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sushant Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sadat Husain and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandra Bhan Vs State of U.P. and Another