Allowed

Jai Narayan Bajpai and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2024/2369/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by two applicants, retired police officials, apprehending arrest in a criminal case. The court granted bail contingent upon furnishing a bond and undertaking to cooperate with the trial proceedings, citing Supreme Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and complying with specific conditions regarding court appearance and conduct.

Jai Narayan Bajpai and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:73138

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2369 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Jai Narayan Bajpai And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Pati Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

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

¶7

By means of present anticipatory bail application, the applicants have shown their apprehension of arrest in Case Crime No. CBCID / C.B. No. 605 of 2008 arising out of Case Crime No. 0011 of 2007, P.S. Baghauli, District Hardoi. It has been submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case as they have not committed any offence, as alleged in the F.I.R.

¶8

The attention has been drawn towards the Annexure no. 8 which is an order dated 9.8.2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Misc. Bench No. 6488 of 2010 (Jai Narain Bajpai & others vs. State of U.P. & others) whereby the Division Bench quashed the sanctioning order which was passed against the applicants giving liberty to the State through Home Secretary to reconsider the matter for granting sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. The aforesaid order was assailed before the Apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal(Crl.) No. 4143 of 2013 (State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Jai Narain Bajpai & Ors.) and the Apex Court vide order dated 17.8.2015 (Annexure no. 9) disposed of that appeal giving liberty to the authorities to take decision in the issue in question as to whether the sanction si to be granted against the applicants or not and for carrying out aforesaid exercise two months period was granted. Despite the aforesaid direction being issued by the Apex Court to take cognizance within two months the cognizance was taken on 6.9.2019, therefore, challenging the aforesaid order the applicants again filed the Misc. Bench No. 31631 of 2019 (Jai Narain Bajpai & 4 Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) wherein the interim order dated 17.2.2021 (Annexure no. 10) has been passed directing not to take any coercive steps against the applicants, though the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.8.2023 (Annexure no. 11).

¶9

The charge-sheet has been filed in the case on 25.3.2021 (Annexure no. S.A.-2) and the learned trial court took cognizance and issued summons on 22.4.2021 (Annexure no. S.A. 3). Learned counsel has stated that now the bailable warrant has been issued against the petitioner on 3.10.2024, though the applicants are ready to appear before the court concerned and to cooperate in the proceedings as they have no intention to flout the process of law. Since the applicants are retired police officials and are ready to cooperate in the proceedings, therefore, their liberty may be protected.

¶10

Sri Nikhil Singh, learned AGA-I has opposed the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the applicant by submitting that when the summon was issued on 22.4.2021 the applicants could have appeared before the court concerned. Even if the interim order was in their favour which was vacated on 10.8.2023, then the applicants should have appeared before the learned trial court but they avoided the proceedings pending before the learned trial court.

¶11

Be that as it may, without entering into the merits of the issue and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, since the applicants are ready to participate in the proceedings pending before the learned trial court / magistrate and are also ready to furnish the bond and surety along with the undertaking and keeping in a view that the present applicants are retired police officials, their liberty may be protected in the light of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the applicant but could not dispute the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

Without entering into the merits of the issue and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the undertaking of the applicants that they shall cooperate with the trial proceedings, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the liberty of the applicants may be protected till conclusion of trial in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)2020 SCC online SC 98 ..

¶14

Therefore, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like

¶15

amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority/ court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

1. That the applicants shall appear before the learned trial court within a period of 15 days or on the date fixed whichever is earlier and shall furnish the bail bond and sureties to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- each along with undertaking that they shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and learned trial court shall accept such sureties, bond and undertaking without taking the applicants into judicial custody. Thereafter, the applicants shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly and shall not misuse the liberty of aforesaid protection, failing which the learned trial court may pass any appropriate coercive order securing the presence of the present applicants in the trial proceedings.

¶17

2. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶18

3. that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant;

¶19

4. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶20

5. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted.

¶21

Before parting with, learned trial court is directed to conduct and conclude the trial with expedition and no unnecessary adjournment shall be given to any of the parties.

¶22

In view of above, the present anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶23

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 6.11.2024 Om

¶25

Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jai Narayan Bajpai and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Narayan Bajpai and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

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

Reeta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Aman Patel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Crime and Investigation Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Budiram @ Karmraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko and Another

Ram Kumar Chaudhari and 2 Others Vs the Special Judge (Anticorruption /Cbi, West) Lucknow and 8 Others

Rampratap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko

Prithvi Pal Pasi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.