Allowed

Arun Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2023ABAIL/9669/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court allowed the plea, applying the law in Sushila Aggarwal, and directed the applicant to be released on bond and surrender two sureties with specific conditions regarding cooperation and absence from India.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed. Applicant directed to be released on anticipatory bail by furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:185232

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9669 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Arun Kumar Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajneesh Shukla,Anurag Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajneesh Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 241 of 2023, under Sections 379, 411 IPC and 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and 3(1)/7/57 of Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021, Police Station Meja, District Prayagraj, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶8

As per prosecution story, six tractors and trailers were intercepted by police including that of the applicant bearing no. MP 53 AB 0131 involved in carrying sand procured from illegal mining on 11.6.2023.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has the apprehension of his arrest. It is next stated that the allegations are per se false. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has next stated that the applicant is the owner of the tractor and was not driving it.

¶10

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶12

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of " Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 ", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶13

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Arun Kumar Shukla involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶15

i. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶16

ii. that 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 or tamper with the evidence;

¶17

iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶18

iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶20

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶21

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶22

Order Date :- 25.9.2023\Shalini

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arun Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Shukla 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

Smt. Lajja Rani and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyendra Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lokesh Pandit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sambhu Jaiswal and Another Vs State of U.P.

Shyam Sharan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Furkaan Ansari Vs State of U.P.