Allowed

Satpal and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2023ABAIL/9604/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to applicants Satpal and Satish Kumar in a case involving sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 352, 506, and 34 IPC. The court released them on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties with specific conditions to remain present during trial and prevent tampering or absconding.

What did the court decide?

Enlarged the applicants on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:181565

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9604 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Satpal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants 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.39 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 352, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station Saroorpur, District Meerut.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case, in fact, no such incident has taken place. The applicants have never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. It is a cross case. In the alleged incident, two persons from the side of the applicants' side have also sustained injuries for which applicants' side have also lodged the FIR in which charge sheet has also been submitted. He further submits that initially the FIR has been lodged under Section 307 IPC and during investigation it was converted under Section 308 IPC, as such, notice under Section 41-A was served upon the applicants to record their statements and applicants have recorded their statement. He further submits that the applicants have fully cooperated in the investigation, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicants, hence, the applicants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that all the offences are punishable for less than seven years, therefore, applicants are entitled to bail in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2021) 10 SCC 773 . Reliance is also placed on para 14 of a recent judgment rendered

¶10

by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand and another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 892 and Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2022) 1 SCC 676 .

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants but could not dispute the contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicants.

¶12

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the 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 applicants- Satpal and Satish Kumar, involved in the aforesaid 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(iv) 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.

¶18

(v) 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.

¶19

(vi) 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

¶20

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 is disposed of.

¶23

Order Date :- 20.9.2023 Ajeet

¶24

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

Satpal and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satpal and Another v. State of U.P.

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

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

Renuka Lily Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mukhaya Arakshi 308 Ompal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Shankar Pal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another