Allowed

Surendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2023ABAIL/7153/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court granted bail to Surendra accused of attempting to cause death under Section 307 IPC. The court referenced Supreme Court precedents and the applicant's non-custodial status, ordering bail subject to personal bond and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with sureties and adherence to specified conditions.

Surendra Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:138461

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7153 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Surendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Singh Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant - Surendra in connection with Case Crime No.250 of 2015, under Section 307 IPC, Police Station Bah, District Agra.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that earlier in this matter regular bail was granted to the applicant under sections 323, 504, 506, 324, 325 IPC, but the court concerned also took cognizance under section 307 IPC and now the anticipatory bail is being prayed for under section 307 IPC. It is further submitted that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. He has been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that no grievous injuries have been caused to any of the injured persons in this case. The x-ray report of the main injured Hemlata reveals that no bony injury has been found over her body. It is further submitted that the Magistrate court in this matter has taken cognizance twice and an Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. - 20668 of 2016 was moved by the applicant wherein interim stay was granted to them, but subsequently the Magistrate court proceeded with the trial of the case following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC 299 whereas the aforesaid application is still pending before the High Court. It is further submitted that no custodial interrogation is required in this matter from the applicant after filing of the charge-sheet and as such the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the cognizance order dated 7.4.2016 under section 307 IPC was challenged. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate court after taking cognizance under section 307 IPC proceeded to take cognizance of the case again under sections 323, 504, 506, 324, 325 IPC vide order dated 17.10.2016 and that order was challenged by way of criminal revision no.523 of 2016 by the informant and the the said revision was allowed. It is further submitted that many persons have sustained injuries in this matter and active role of the applicant has come into light on the basis of the evidence collected by the I.O. during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that injured Sunita, who has sustained bony injuries, received fracture in the 9th rib of left side chest and injuries no.5 & 6 caused to her are grievous in nature.

¶10

It reveals from the perusal of the record that a general role has been assigned to all the accused persons and no specific role has been assigned against them. Even the injured persons have not assigned any specific role to any of the accused persons including the present applicant.

¶11

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶12

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶13

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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 course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood 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 Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director, AIR 2021 Supreme Court 4154 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held

¶15

that if a person, who is an accused in a non-bailable/cognizable offence, was not taken into custody during the period of investigation, in such a case, it is appropriate that he may be released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him/her to be released on bail.

¶16

Hence, 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 end of the trial in the matter.

¶17

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶18

In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of the trial on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall make himself available before the court concerned on the date fixed in the matter;

¶20

(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 officer;

¶21

(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.

¶22

In case of default of any of the conditions, same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.

¶23

Order Date :- 11.7.2023 ss

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Surendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra 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

Gyan Chand @ Gama and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Kumar Dubey vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Yaseen vs State of U.P. and Another

Sughar Lal Pal Vs State of U.P.

Paramhans Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagdish Prasad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another