Allowed

Harchand Singh and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2023ABAIL/8051/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Allahabad allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for two applicants facing charges of murder and culpable homicide, extending the bail till the conclusion of the trial subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till the end of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties and meeting specified conditions.

Harchand Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:143785

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8051 of 2023 Applicant :- Harchand Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Om Vikram Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants Harchand Singh and Reshma Devi seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 24 of 1992, Criminal Case No. 1166 of 2017, under Sections 328, 304 IPC, Police Station Pachhaya Gaon, District Etawah.

¶6

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

¶7

In the F.I.R. it has been alleged that the deceased Pravendra @ Raju alongwith Rajesh Bhadauria @ Munaiya had gone to his parental village where at about 1.00 a.m. in the night he reached his uncle (chacha) Harchand Singh and told that someone has administered poisonous substance to him while he was on the way and now he was not feeling well. In the next morning, the present applicants and other family members of the deceased took the deceased to district hospital, Etawah where during treatment he died. F.I.R. was lodged on 19.6.1992 and investigation started and thereafter final report was submitted by the police and subsequently re-investigation was made by C.B.C.I.D. and again final report was submitted. On the protest petition filed by the informant, the Court while rejecting the final report straightway summoned the applicants to face trial.

¶8

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. It is further submitted that the applicants have no connection with the alleged crime and they had no motive as such to cause the homicidal death of their own nephew. It is also submitted that in the police investigation and also in the thorough investigation made by the C.B.C.I.D. no offence was found to be committed by the present applicants. It is further submitted that in the post

¶9

mortem report the cause of death was not ascertained and viscera was preserved. It is further submitted that in the viscera report poisonous substance has been found but it was the present applicants who took the deceased to hospital and informed his family members and that was the bonafide conduct of the present applicants. During course of investigation made by the police and also by the C.B.C.I.D. as well the present applicants have been cooperative. It is also submitted that the police during investigation had collected evidence to the effect that the deceased was accustomed of taking narcotics substance and that was the cause of his death. It is also submitted that the applicant no.1 is aged about 91 years old and the applicant no.2 is his wife. No custodial interrogation is required after more than twenty years of the incident. No process under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC has been issued against the applicants and the applicants have not been declared absconder. In case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that during investigation evidence has been collected to the effect that the deceased had some illicit relations with the daughters of the applicants and that was the motive to cause his death by the applicants. In the viscera report, poisonous substance has been found. Though final report has been submitted by the police and the C.B.C.I.D. as well but on the protest petition filed by the informant, after making thorough enquiry, the Court concerned rejected the final report and summoned the applicants to face trial. Deceased was a young man.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

In this matter, there is no eye witness of the occurrence and only on the basis of alleged motive of some illicit relations between the daughters of the applicants with the deceased they have been named in this matter. It is also notable that at this stage no custodial interrogation is required in the matter.

¶13

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.

¶14

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can,

¶15

depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶16

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.

¶17

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till the end of trial.

¶18

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶19

In the event of arrest of the applicants, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their 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:-

¶20

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available before the Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the trial.

¶21

(ii) 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶22

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 19.7.2023

¶25

safi

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Harchand Singh and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harchand Singh 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

Ritu Patel Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Umashankar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Piyush Verma Vs State of U.P.

Jaswant Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Taki Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Kashyap Vs State of U.P. and Another