Allowed

Meraj v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2023ABAIL/9797/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, relying on the principles laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre, allowed an application for anticipatory bail. The court found that a case for bail was made out considering the nature of accusation, lack of credible evidence, and the applicant's lack of antecedents, subjecting the application to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, subject to standard bail conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:215342

¶2

Court No. - 78

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9797 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Meraj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shardeshwar Mishra,Jitendra Rana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 117 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 504, 506, 427, 323, 452, 325, 308 IPC, Police Station Pipraich, District Gorakhpur with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶8

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the abovementioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The first information report of this case was lodged against seven named, including applicant, and 10-15 unknown persons, alleging that on 18.05.2021 at 7.30 PM on account of election related enmity, they have caused injuries to the informant and her family members. Learned counsel submitted that only general and omnibus role has been assigned to all the accused persons including applicant. Except the injuries of informant Alimun Nisha, other injured persons have sustained simple injuries. In x-ray report of injured Alimun Nisha, depressed fracture was shown on frontal bone involving frontal sinus with hemorrhage. It was further submitted that in the same incident, five persons have sustained injuries from the side of applicant and that a cross-case was lodged against the informant party vide crime no. 118 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 452, 352 IPC. It was further submitted that investigation is complete and

¶9

charge-sheet has already been filed. It was submitted that co-accused Firoz Ali, Jabbar and Guljar have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, copies of which, are taken on record. The applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the trial and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail and argued that applicant is named in the first information report. In the alleged incident, six persons have sustained injuries and out of them, injured Alimun Nisha has sustained injuries of serious nature. However, it could not be disputed that some persons have sustained injuries from the side of applicant and a cross-case has been lodged against the informant party.

¶11

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra , (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶12

In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶13

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Meraj involved in the aforesaid case crime shall 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 Station House Officer of the police station concerned/court concerned with the following

¶15

conditions :-

¶16

i. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

ii.The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

iii.The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶20

v. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶22

Order Date :- 7.11.2023

¶23

Anand

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Meraj v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meraj 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Meera Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vineet Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Laxman Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Indrajeet Yadav Alias Indrajeet Singh Yadurai Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramnath Vs State of U.P. and Another

Virendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another