Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC10 Aug 2023ABAIL/8517/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. arising from an attempt to murder charge, the Single Judge rejected the prayer deeming it not a fit case for relief but directed the lower court to decide the regular bail application strictly complying with the Satender Kumar Antil judgment.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected; direction issued to lower court to dispose of regular bail application per Satender Kumar Antil guidelines.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:163415

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8517 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Soveer Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mukesh Joshi

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants 1. Soveer Singh and 2.Hukm Singh seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.290 of 2015, under Section 307 IPC, Police Station Thakurdwara, District- Moradabad.

¶8

It was alleged in the FIR that on 23.6.2015 the present applicants chased the informant/ injured with a pistol and with intention to kill him opened fire upon him, which inflicted upon his body and the injured got serious injury and was admitted into the hospital. FIR was lodged, which culminated into charge sheet.

¶9

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of their arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. The investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed. It is further submitted that earlier in the year 2012 the informant of this case has stabbed the present applicant Soveer Singh and an FIR in this respect was lodged and only with intention to create pressure in this case the present FIR has been lodged on false grounds. It has been further submitted that as a matter of fact the fire arm injury has been caused to the injured by the injured himself and a wrong allegation has been made against the applicant that they chased the injured and opened fire from behind him, which inflicted upon his leg. It is further submitted that no grevious injury has been sustained on any vital part of the body of the injured. It is also submitted that there is no criminal history of the applicants to their credit. It is further submitted that after filing of the charge sheet an Application U/S 482 No. 16009

¶10

of 2016 was filed by the applicant before this Court and an interim protection was granted to them vide order dated 18.5.2016 but however, subsequently the said application was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 7.1.2020. It is further submitted that they have been cooperative during course of investigation. It has been lastly submitted that in case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It has been submitted that in the present case ample evidence has been collected against the applicants during course of investigation but the I.O. of this case mala fidely submitted the final report in this matter but however, the Court concerned rejected the final report and making a comment upon the hasty and faulty investigation straightway summoned the present applicants to face the trial. It is further submitted that the medical evidence supports the prosecution version and fire arm injury has been found upon the leg of the injured, who was saved by God grace. It is further submitted that the applicants have played an active role in the commission of the crime alleged, therefore, they are not entitled for any relief by this Court.

¶12

In the present case specific allegation has been made by the injured that fire was made by the applicants and fire arm injury was also inflicted upon his body. Learned trial Court has also pointed out the short comings of the investigation in the summoning order passed against the present applicants.

¶13

Although the charge sheet has been submitted in this matter but 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, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶15

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,

¶16

llikelihood 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

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I deem it not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicants. Prayer made in the application is refused.

¶18

The anticipatory bail application is rejected.

¶19

In the last, learned counsel for the applicants has urged that direction be given to the learned Court concerned to consider and decide the bail application of the applicants 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 .

¶20

Hence, 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 case (supra).

¶21

It is further directed that the 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 judgement 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.

¶22

Order Date :- 10.8.2023

¶23

Fhd

¶24

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soveer 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

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

Indal Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Sattar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramsewak Alias Daya Shankar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others