Allowed

Harendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2023ABAIL/9484/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving IPC offences. Bail was subject to personal bond, sureties, and specific conditions regarding non-interference, appearance, and passport surrender, referencing Sushila Aggarwal norms.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement on anticipatory bail subject to personal bond, sureties, and conditions on non-interference, appearance, and passport surrender.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:184950

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9484 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Harendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Srivastava, Noor Muhammad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Ms. Shristi Singh, holding brief of Mr. Yogesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.0293 of 2020, under Sections 307, 427 and 506 IPC, Police Station Jasrana, District Firozabad.

¶8

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. It is a case of no injury. The impugned FIR has been lodged as a counterblast to the Civil Suit No.273 of 2020 filed by mother of the applicant in which interim order in favour of the applicant has been granted vide order dated 24.08.2020. She further submits that earlier the applicant has approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.7165 of 2020 in which interim protection was granted to the applicant till filing of charge sheet. Now the charge sheet has been submitted. She further submits that during investigation the applicant has fully cooperated in the investigation and never misused the liberty granted to the applicant. She further submits that the applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 13 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.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for

¶10

anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid contentions raised by learnd counsel for the applicant.

¶11

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 judgment of the Apex Court.

¶12

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Harendra , 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:-

¶13

(i) 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

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

¶15

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

¶16

(iv) 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

(v) 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

(vi) 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

¶20

liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 25.9.2023 Ajeet

¶23

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

Harendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harendra 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

Kasim Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P.

Khushbu @ Mohit Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Priyanka Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sharda Devi Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Rai Vs State of U.P. and Another