Allowed

Surajpal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2023ABAIL/6548/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Allahabad High Court disposed of an anticipatory bail application. Relying on Sushila Aggarwal, the court enlarged the applicant on anticipatory bail subject to four sureties and specific conditions including cooperation with investigation and absence from the country.

What did the court decide?

Applicant enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each to the trial court.

Surajpal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:135233

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6548 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Surajpal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Prashant Verma, learned counsel for the applicant 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.38 of 2020, under Sections 366, 376, 504, 506 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Bhogaon, District Mainpuri.

¶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 never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The impugned FIR has been lodged after 20 days of the alleged incident. As per statement of the victim, there is no serious allegation against the applicant. The victim in her statement has levelleved allegation of rape against co-accused Ajay. He further submits that earlier the applicant has approached before this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.5147 of 2020 and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant vide order dated 07.09.2020, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure No.6 to the affidavit filed in support of application. He has further submitted that after investigation, the investigating officer has submitted charge sheet against the applicant and the court below has taken cognizance in a routine manner. He has further submitted that applicant has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail and during this period the applicant has not misused the liberty of bail, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant, hence, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 24 of the affidavit.

¶9

Learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail to the applicant and has submitted that now charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and other co-accused persons and cognizance has been taken, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail, hence, the same is liable to be rejected.

¶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- Surajpal , involved in the aforesaid case 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

¶19

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.

¶20

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 applicant.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 10.7.2023 Ajeet

¶23

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

Surajpal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surajpal 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

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

Rajeev Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

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

Pankaj Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Aditya Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Vs State of U.P. and Another