Allowed

Nagelal Sonkar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2023ABAIL/8638/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to Nagelal Sonkar in a case involving alleged assault and attempt to murder, holding it a fit case for bail till the end of trial. The applicant must furnish a bond and comply with standard conditions regarding appearance and own conduct.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed till the end of trial upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:156008

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8638 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Nagelal Sonkar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Prakash,Dinesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Nagelal Sonkar seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 68 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 307, 323 IPC, Police Station Kishanpur, District Fatehpur.

¶7

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

¶8

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Injuries received by the injured are simple in nature. No gunshot injury has been received to any person. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained through supplementary affidavit filed in the matter. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. No process under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC has been issued against the applicant and the applicant has not been declared absconder. In case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he 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 and submitted that application U/S 482 CrPC No.43757 of 2018 moved by the applicants is still pending before this Court.

¶10

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

¶11

In this matter, it has been alleged in the F.I.R. that the applicants alongwith other co-accused persons made assault upon the

¶12

informant and other injured Daya Shanker Mishra with lathi and danda on 31.3.2018 at 1.15 p.m. and also made fire upon the informant with intention to kill him and fled away. F.I.R. was lodged, investigation started and now charge sheet has been submitted.

¶13

It reveals from the perusal of the record that no gunshot injury has been found on the body of the injured. No specific role has been assigned to the present applicant. In Application U/S 482 CrPC No.43757 of 2018, protection was granted to the applicant by this Court vide order dated 13.12.2018, but however the learned Magistrate court proceeded with the matter on 2.9.2022 in compliance of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC 299 and now nonbailable warrant has been issued against the applicant.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶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 and also the fact that though the application U/S 482 CrPC moved by the applicant is pending but at present no interim order is operative against the present applicant and also that in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9394 of 2018 vide order dated 13.4.2018, the applicant was protected till

¶18

submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the end of trial.

¶19

The anticipatory bail application is allowed accordingly.

¶20

In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of the trial on his 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 :-

¶21

(i) The applicant shall make himself available before the court concerned on the date fixed in the matter;

¶22

(ii) The applicant 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 officer;

¶23

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶24

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

¶25

Order date :-2.8.2023.

¶26

¶27

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

Nagelal Sonkar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagelal Sonkar 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

Ram Sharan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suraj Harijan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Riyazuddin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Gajla Devi Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Long Sri Vs State of U.P. and Another