Allowed

Prathveeraj and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Jan 2023ABAIL/7244/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court observed that the applicants had no criminal antecedents and the medical report did not support FIR allegations of firearm injuries. Bail was granted on personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/ each and two sureties of same amount subject to standard conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7244 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Prathveeraj And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Karunesh Narayan Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Karunesh Narayan Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri O. P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no.226 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 I.P.C., Police Station Allahaganj, District Shahjahanpur, with the prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, F.I.R. was lodged by the first informant Pushpa Devi against seven persons including the present applicants Prathveeraj and Amar Singh alleging that they came on the spot armed with illegal arms and began to demolish her house and fired at them. Neelam, grand daughter of the informant sustained firearm injuries on her head.

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the applicants that they have been falsely implicated in this case as opposite side wanted to encroach upon their property for which they had complained to the revenue authorities eariler. The revenue authority conducted an enquiry and gave a report that the persons from the informant side namely Ashwani Kumar, Shyama and Mahipal have been raising illegal construction on the land belonging to accused side. It is contended that to put undue pressure on the applicants a false F.I.R. has been lodged against them. The injured person sustained no firearm injury. The medical report of Neelam shows simple injury of lacerated wound. It is contended that no offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out against them. It is also contended that in fact it was the informant side who came and attacked them with lathi and danda. An F.I.R. was also lodged from the accused side against Ashwani Kumar and three others.

¶9

05.Learned A.G.A. has opposed the anticipatory bail application on the premise that there is cross version and that both side sustained injuries albeit of simple nature.

¶10

06 I went through all the papers on record including the injury report which does not show receiving of any injury of firearm. On the other hand injury report of Mahendra Pal a person belonging to accused side sustained incised wound on his right parietal region.

¶11

Without commenting on merits of the allegations I am of the view that there is no apprehension of applicants fleeing from justice and that they do not have criminal antecedent and the medical report does not support the allegations as contained in the F.I.R., the case of anticipatory bail is

¶12

made out.

¶13

In view of the above, I find it a fit case to give benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicants, hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicants, Prathveeraj and Amar Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- each and two sureties of the same amount before the court concerned subject to the conditions as below:-

¶15

(i) that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶16

(ii) that 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 or tamper with the evidence;

¶17

(iii) that the applicants shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶18

(iv) that the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶19

(v) that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶20

(vi) that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicants.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming their independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶23

Order Date :- 2.1.2023

¶24

Asha

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prathveeraj and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prathveeraj and Another 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

X (Juvenile) Vs State of U.P. and Another

X Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dileep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohit Kumar Goyal Vs State of U.P.

Rinku and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another