Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2023ABAIL/8279/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 438 CrPC, the Allahabad High Court refused anticipatory bail to the applicant. The court held that the allegations were serious, the applicant actively participated in the crime causing injuries and arson, and the matter was not a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail refused and application rejected.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:160891

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8279 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lavkush Kumar Bhatt Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mahendra Kumar Yadav,Shiv Bhushan Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Ram Singh seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0005 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 504, 506, 307, 308, 436 IPC, Police Station Kamalganj, District Farrukhabad.

¶7

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

¶8

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that no specific role in the incident has been assigned to the present applicant. It is also submitted that earlier an F.I.R. was lodged by the present applicant against Sachin, the alleged injured of this case alongwith some other accused persons as case crime no. 132 of 2022 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 352, 307, 325 IPC wherein the present applicant sustained grievous injury by firearm and some other persons also sustained serious injuries on 31.5.2022 but the F.I.R. was lodged on 2.1.2023 after about eight months of the incident without any plausible explanation of the delay. Applicant has no criminal history. Present F.I.R. has been lodged only to create pressure upon the present applicant. Injured persons in this case have received simple injuries except one fracture on temporal bone caused to one of the injured persons. The investigation of the case is going on. It has

¶9

been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that there are several injured persons in this case and as per C.T. Scan report injured Vimla Devi has sustained fracture on the temporal bone and a number of injuries have been sustained by all the injured persons. Injured Sachin has received firearm injury also. It is also submitted that ample and cogent evidence has been collected against the applicant during course of investigation. Several articles kept in the house of the informant have been set on fire.

¶11

In this matter, from the perusal of the record it appears that the applicant has actively participated in the commission of the alleged crime, which is mentioned in the F.I.R. and several persons have sustained injuries. Several articles kept in the house of the informant have been set on fire by the present applicant and other co-accused persons.

¶12

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held 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.

¶13

Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant, all attending facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that allegations are serious in nature, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant. Prayer made in the application is refused.

¶14

The application is rejected .

¶15

However, it is observed that the bail application of the applicant, 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 .

¶16

Order Date :- 9.8.2023 safi

¶17

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Singh 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

Saurabh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rani Devi Vs State of U.P.

Vikram Mavi Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Prasad and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Praful Srivastava Vs State of U.P. . and Another

Dipak Kumar Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others