Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC6 Jul 2023ABAIL/6843/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court refused anticipatory bail to applicant falsely implicated in crime under Section 326 IPC. Court held prima facie case exists. Directed trial court to decide regular bail expeditiously if applicant surrenders following Satender Kumar Antil guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail refused; directions issued to lower court to consider regular bail application expeditiously upon applicant's surrender.

Sonam @ Lalu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:133160

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6843 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sonam @ Lalu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Preet Pal Singh Rathore, Neelam Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Preet Pal Singh Rathore, 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 anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.55 of 2023, under Section 326 IPC, Police Station Usawan, District Budaun.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, in fact, no such incident has taken place. The applicant have never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. As per allegation, the applicant by cutting the penis of the victim has changed the gender of the victim. He further submits that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 03.03.2023 whereas the impugned FIR has been lodged on 19.03.2023 i.e. about 16 days of the alleged incident for which no proper explanation has been given throughout the FIR. He further submits that during investigation, both parties entered into written compromise which is duly signed by the parties in which it is clearly stated that he has changed his gender deliberately with his free will and desire. Prima facie no offence is made out against the applicant .The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 21 of the affidavit filed in support of application.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant and has submitted that as per allegation, the applicant by cutting the penis of the victim has changed his gender, therefore, in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, he is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on

¶10

record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶11

From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. The allegations are serious. Prima facie offence is made out against the applicant.

¶12

After having very carefully examined, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material brought on record, there is no justification for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is hereby refused.

¶13

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that directions may be given to the court below to consider the bail application of the applicant in view of the judgment in the case Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.

¶14

In the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for deciding of the bail application. For that purpose, the cases have been divided under four categories. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the trial courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid guidelines, while considering the bail application. This Court has no doubt, that as and when, the applicants approach the trial court for bail, the trial court shall definitely follow the directions given in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra).

¶15

However, considering the nature of the allegations and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court concerned and applies for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra).

¶16

With the above directions, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of finally.

¶17

Order Date :- 6.7.2023 Ajeet

¶18

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonam @ Lalu 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

Jagmohan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajneesh Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Pal Vs State of U.P.and Another

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

Satyendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sharad Khanna Vs State of U.P.