Allowed

Rajkishor v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Oct 2023ABAIL/9968/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J. granted anticipatory bail to Rajkishor in a communal dispute case involving sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 506 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act. The court imposed personal bond and standard liberty conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted upon bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties subject to conditions of cooperating with investigation and not leaving the country.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:192128

¶2

Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9968 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Rajkishor Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Basharat Ali Khan,Salman Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶5

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 168 of 2014, under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 506 IPC read with Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Meerut during the pendency of trial.

¶6

As per contents of the FIR lodged by the informant, on 10.5.2014, while his brother and uncle were returning home from Ghantaghar after selling cardboards, in the market, in the way, when they reached near Masjid Rangarja Tirkhan, Meerut at around 02.30 pm, the named accused persons including applicants were standing with weapons and were raising communal slogans and were saying that now our government is coming and the named accused persons including the applicant exhorted others to kill them upon which all the accused persons are said to have opened fire on them with an intention to kill them as a result of which both of them sustained serious injuries.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that F.I.R. has been lodged against 15 named persons including the applicant. In the FIR, false allegation has been levelled against the applicant. He further submits that allegations made against the aforesaid applicant are fake and general in nature. No specific role is assigned to the present applicant. The applicant is a business man and has no previous criminal history. It is further submitted that both the injured have not named the applicant in their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the injuries sustained by the injured are not grievous to life. It is further submitted that in respect of the same incident three different FIRs have been lodged out of which one case has been withdrawn and in second one present applicant has already been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 27.09.2023 passed in Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application No. 9995 of 2023 and the present one is the third one, in which applicant is seeking anticipatory bail. The applicant is having definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time.

¶8

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said facts.

¶9

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is

¶10

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.

¶11

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant Rajkishor involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail 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:-

¶12

(1) 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;

¶13

(2) 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; and

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(5) 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

(6) 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

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

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 5.10.2023/RavindraKSingh

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajkishor v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkishor 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

Suraj Singh Vs State of U.P.

Saroj Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Vyash Kanhiya Chanchal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Om Prakash Trivedi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sachin Gupta @ Sachin Goyal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rakeeb Khan @ Arju Vs State of U.P. and Another