Allowed

Rakesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2023ABAIL/9175/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application, the court granted bail to the applicant based on parity with co-accused and fear of arrest, directing the trial court to follow the guidelines laid down in Sushila Aggarwal case.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each in like amount subject to specified conditions.

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:180532

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9175 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Umesh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶8

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 26 of 2021, under sections 395, 353, 427, 188, 323, 504, 506, 34 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 and Section 126 of Representation of People Act, 1959, 1951, 1989, P.S. Kakarvai, District Jhansi during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has apprehension of arrest in the above mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He is not anmed in the FIR. It is further submitted that co accused Rohit Kumar Dwivedi @ Rohit Maharaj has already been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 19.11.2022 passed in Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application No. 11053 of 2022. It is further submitted that co accused Jagdev and Rajaram have already been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 26.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application No. 11530 of 2021. The case of the applicant stands on identical footing, hence the applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity . The applicant is having definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time.

¶10

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said facts.

¶11

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

¶12

case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicants, they are 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 applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant Rakesh Kumar involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on his 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:-

¶14

(1) The applicants 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;

¶15

(2) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

¶16

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

¶17

(4) The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶18

(5) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants.

¶19

(6) In case, the applicants misuse 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.

¶20

(7) The applicants 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 their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶21

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 applicants.

¶22

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 19.9.2023 RavindraKSingh

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rakesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar 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

Shankar Vs State of U.P. and Another