Partly allowed

Twenkale @ Umendra and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Jul 2023ABAIL/8046/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused an interim apprehension of arrest pending the regular application. The applicant was denied bail because the accused has availed cognitive remedies but the regular application is pending. The court directed the lower court to consider the application strictly in compliance with apex court directives.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail refused; applicants directed to move regular bail application in terms of Satender Kumar Antil case.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:153158

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8046 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Twenkale @ Umendra And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants - Twenkale @ Umendra and Meena Devi seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.174 of 2019, under Sections 452, 323, 324, 325, 504, 308 IPC, Police Station Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of their arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. They have been falsely implicated in this case. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. The investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned. During investigation, the applicants have been fully cooperative. It is further submitted that the alleged offences are punishable with the imprisonment for a maximum period of seven years. In case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶10

In this matter, as is evident from the record, offences levelled against the applicants are punishable with the imprisonment for a maximum period of seven years. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance has also been taken by the Court concerned. As per supplementary medical report, which is annexed with the present application, comminuted depressed fracture of lateral wall of left orbit with left frontal scalp swelling was found on the person of the injured.

¶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

¶12

can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till the end of trial. The prayer made in the application is refused.

¶16

However, it is observed that the bail application of the applicants, if moved, shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 .

¶17

It is further directed that the learned court concerned, while considering the bail application of the applicants in the light of Satender Kumar Antil case (supra), shall pass an order strictly in compliance of the directions given in the aforesaid judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in letter and spirit, particularly complying with the order dated 21.3.2023 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid matter.

¶18

The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶19

Order Date :- 27.7.2023 ss

¶20

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

Twenkale @ Umendra and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Twenkale @ Umendra and Another 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

Kripal and Another Vs State of U.P.

Bharat Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Virendra Kumar Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Manish Kumar Varma Vs State of U.P.

Ved Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yunus and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.