Allowed

Shankar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2023ABAIL/9147/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant, aging 70, sought bail in a cow slaughter and animal cruelty case, alleging false implication. The court directed enlargement on anticipatory bail with conditions including bond, cooperation with IO, and surrender of passport. The application is disposed of order.

What did the court decide?

Applicant enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each in like amount, subject to conditions including cooperation with investigation, no inducement

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:180462

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9147 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Shankar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Bhushan Prasad Shrivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Brij Bhushan Prasad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶6

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.15 of 2022, under Sections 3/5A/8 Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of Animal Cruelty Act, Police Station Tarya Sujan, District Kushinagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant in fact no such incident has taken place as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant is aged about 70 years suffering from several old disease. Neither the applicant was named in the FIR nor arrested on the spot. During investigation, the complicity of the applicant has been shown due to owner of the vehicle. He further submits that the vehicle was released from the Court on 19.06.2023, thereafter, the applicant has been implicated. Investigation is going on and till date no charge sheet has been filed. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 18 of the affidavit. He further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.

¶9

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 . The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid

¶10

judgment of the Apex Court.

¶11

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Shankar, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.

¶13

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶16

(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶17

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 .

¶18

(vii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶19

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.

¶21

Order Date :- 19.9.2023/Ajeet

¶22

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shankar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar 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

Jouli Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Adanan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdul Quadir Vs State of U.P.

Satish Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vipendra @ Babu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another