Allowed

Tikshna Pal Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Aug 2023ABAIL/8646/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to two applicants in a murder and culpable homicide case until the conclusion of the trial, relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding the duration and grant of bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed till conclusion of trial on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and specific conditions to avoid tampering or fleeing.

Tikshna Pal Singh and Another Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:166228

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8646 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Tikshna Pal Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- R.P. Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Arun Kumar Srivastava, under the authority of Sri R.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the material available on record. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicants- 1. Tikshna Pal Singh and 2. Rupendra Singh in connection with Case Crime No. 179 of 2017 under sections 328, 342, 304 IPC, P.S. Akrabad, District- Aligarh.

¶8

The named accused persons including the present applicants took the deceased, Bhole Shankar, father of the informant on 15.5.2017 to Tehsil-Kol and got executed a sale deed by him in favour of the co-accused Rajvir whereas the father of the informant was not medically fit at that time. It is further alleged in the FIR that on 10.06.2017 the named accused persons including the present applicants administered some intoxicant chemical to the father of the informant, he fell ill and during treatment in the hospital he expired on 24.6.2017. FIR was lodged on 25.6.2017 under Section 328 and 302 I.P.C. and investigation started, however after investigation charge sheet was submitted under Sections 328, 342, 304 I.P.C.

¶9

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. After investigation charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. It is further submitted that the contents of the FIR are totally vague and absurd and the FIR is silent on the point as to at which time the father of the informant was taken by the applicants on 15.5.2017 and where he was kept by them till 10.06.2017. It is

¶10

further submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution version at all. The doctor in his statement before the I.O. has categorically indicates that the cause of death was septicemic shock which means that the death has been occurred due to an old ailment relating to intestine and due to infection the death was caused. It is further submitted that the viscera was preserved and FSL report was also obtained by the I.O. which reflects that no chemical or poison was found in the visra report. It is further submitted that the charge sheet in this matter was submitted in 2018 but till date no coercive process has been issued against the applicants by the Court and they have not been declared as proclaimed offender. It is further submitted that during course of investigation the applicants have been cooperative and now after filing of the charge sheet no custodial interrogation is required. In case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that cogent evidence has been collected during course of investigation that some poisoness substance was administered by the named accused persons including the present applicants to the father of the informant, which caused his death.

¶12

Prima facie in this matter the FSL report and the opinion of the doctor does not support the prosecution version at this stage.

¶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, 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.

¶16

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 a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till conclusion of trial in the matter.

¶17

The anticipatory bail application is allowed accordingly.

¶18

In the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid case crime, 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 :-

¶19

i. 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence

¶20

ii. The applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶21

iii.The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶22

iv.The applicants shall not leave India without prior 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 breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicants in accordance with law.

¶24

It is clarified that the views expressed in this order are strictly restricted to the consideration for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants only and will not concern in the merits of the case and the Court concerned will be at liberty to take a different view in the facts and circumstances of the case as per law.

¶25

Order Date :- 18.8.2023

¶26

Fhd

¶27

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

Tikshna Pal Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tikshna Pal Singh and Another 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

Tarun Bishnoi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jakir @ Chhabbis Vs State of U.P.

Girjesh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ranvijay Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Akash Yadav Vs State of U.P.