Allowed

Abhishek v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2023ABAIL/9805/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous anticipatory bail application, the Court granted relief to the applicant, a government servant. The judge directed the enlargement of the applicant on anticipatory bail subject to stringent conditions based on the Apex Court judgment in Sushila Aggarwal, addressing allegations of false implication and lack of specific participation in the alleged offence.

What did the court decide?

Antonishek was enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount with stringent conditions.

Abhishek Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:201338

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9805 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Abhishek Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satyam Narayan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mahendra Singh Yadav,Ramesh Chandra Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit has been filed today, is taken on record.

¶7

Mr. Shariq Shamim, Advocate has filed Vakalatanama on behalf of applicant after obtaining NOC from the earlier counsel.

¶8

Heard Mr. Shariq Shamim, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Anil Kumar, holding brief of Mr. Mahendra Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the informant.

¶9

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.134 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC, Police Station Inchauli, District Meerut.

¶10

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. As per statement of the injured recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., only general role has been assigned to all persons. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant is a government servant and he is serving in Indian Armed Forces and presently posted at Jammu & Kashmir. Prime facie no alleged offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 23 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.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant and have submitted that co-accused Antesh was arrested in whose confessional statement the complicity of the applicant has been shown. Recovery of empty cartridge has also been made from the possession of Antesh.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

(i) The applicant 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

(ii) 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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(v) 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.

¶19

(vi) 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 .

¶20

(vii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the

¶21

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.

¶22

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 applicant.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 18.10.2023 Ajeet

¶25

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

Abhishek v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek 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

Smt. Mithlesh Vs State of U.P.

Anoop Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyaveer Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Radha Mohan Dwivedi Vs State of U.P.

Mamta and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another