Allowed

Akash Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home,Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2024/2071/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to Akash Singh in connection with allegations of affray, culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and attempted murder under the IPC. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents, noting the inconsistency in prosecution evidence and the filing of a charge sheet against other accused.

What did the court decide?

Accused granted anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, directed to surrender to the trial court within twenty days.

Akash Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:66656

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2071 of 2024 Applicant :- Akash Singh

¶4

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home,Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Pranshu Agrawal,Chandan Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

The applicant has moved the present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.235/2021, under Sections 147/148/149/307 IPC, P.S. Kamlapur, District Sitapur.

¶8

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

¶9

In the prosecution, it is alleged that while the applicant was going for the nomination of Smt. Malini Devi for the post of Block Pramukh, Block Kasmanda, on the road outside the block, another contents Guddi Devi along with her supporters were there who suddenly started dragging Malini Devi. It has been further alleged that named accused persons along with unnamed accused persons fired and threw hand grenades, due to that injured Kunwar Akhand Pratap Singh and Anupam Singh have suffered injuries in their head and hand.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that role of firing or throwing grenade is not on the present applicant. General allegations have been levelled. The injured Anupam Singh in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that Prabhat Tiwari has caused injury to him. There is no recovery of explosive substance from the place of occurrence as well as it has not been shown in the site plan. The injured Kunwar

¶11

Akhand Pratap Singh in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has admitted that he was admitted in Sahara Hospital and cause for admission has been shown that he fell from the stairs. It has been further submitted that the investigating officer at CD NO. 38 has opined that the allegation in the FIR as well as in the statement of the injured is not matching with the medical report. In CD No. 39, the contradiction in the statement of two injured have been noted by the investigating officer and therefore, he is trying to find some independent witness who can tell the true and correct version of the prosecution.

¶12

It has been further submitted that the allegations leveled in the FIR have not been found true by the investigating officer and that is why names of all four named accused persons have been dropped. Charge sheet has been filed. During investigation, he has not been arrested.

¶13

It is submitted that the applicant is innocent. The applicant has never absconded. He undertakes to cooperate in the trial.

¶14

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

¶15

On due consideration to the relevant part of CD-38 and 39 as well as considering the fact that charge sheet has been filed; during investigation, the applicant has not been arrested as well as considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mahdoom Bava v. CBI, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 299 and also the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 , subject to his cooperation in the trial.

¶16

In view of the above, the accused applicant is directed to

¶17

surrender before trial court within twenty days from today. The accused applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail by the trial court on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, with the following conditions.

¶18

(i) 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 tamper with the evidence;

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶20

(iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶21

(iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶22

(v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

¶23

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

¶24

In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed .

¶25

Order Date :- 25.9.2024 R.C.

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Akash Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home,Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akash Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home,Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rupesh Sahay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Uma Shanker Lodhi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Akash Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Govt. Lko and Another

Jai Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Niyaz Ahmad @ Sadab vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Balwinder Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.