Disposed

Ravi Pratap v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2024/54/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) disposed of an anticipatory bail application, directing the trial court to dispose of regular bail with utmost expedition if the applicant appears within 20 days, and granting personal bail of Rs. 50,000 with sureties as interim relief.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed; applicant to appear before trial court within 20 days for expedited regular bail disposal; interim anticipatory bail on bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties granted.

Ravi Pratap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:3404

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 54 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ravi Pratap Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Pandey,Sharad Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including up-to-date case diary and the investigation of the case is still pending.

¶7

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

¶8

The instant application has been moved by the applicant- Ravi Pratap in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0236 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504 and 316 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Gonda, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. The applicant is not having any relation or connection with the victim/prosecutrix and his name has been dragged into this case only on account of his association with the other accused persons.

¶10

It is further submitted that the allegations of the F.I.R. were thoroughly investigated and applicant cooperated in the investigation and it is on this account he was not arrested by the investigating agency during the course of investigation and the charge sheet has been filed without arresting him.

¶11

It is vehemently submitted that since the investigating agency has not found any reason to arrest the applicant, applicant is apprehending that when he will appear before the trial court for the purpose of obtaining regular bail, the disposal of his bail application may take sometime and in the meantime he may be confined in prison. Thus, he is having reasonable apprehension of being arrested by the Court when he has not been arrested by the investigating agency.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773, Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1, Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. through Director : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 941 and in Nathu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others, 2021(6) SCC 64, MANU/SC/0360/2021.

¶13

It is also submitted that identically placed co-accused person, namely, Chandra Prakash had appeared before this Court by moving an application for anticipatory bail and the same has been disposed of vide order dated 21.10.2022 with a direction to the trial court to dispose of his regular bail application of the applicant in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above-mentioned cases. The applicant is not having any criminal history.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that having regard to the manner in which the offence has been committed, the applicant is not entitled for any protection.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it appears to be an admitted situation that applicant was not arrested during the course of investigation and the charge sheet has now been submitted without making arrest of him. The apprehension of the applicant appears to be that since he has not been arrested by the investigating agency and he is intending to move regular bail application to move before the trial court, he is having reasonable apprehension of being arrested by the Court as the disposal of his bail application may take sometime and in the meantime he may be confined in prison.

¶16

In this regard, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above-mentioned cases is relevant, wherein it has been highlighted that when the investigating agency has chosen not to arrest the accused person during the course of investigation, the practice of sending those accused persons to jail during the course of disposal of their regular bail application may not be appreciated. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court with regard to the anticipatory bail application moved by the co-accused Chandra Prakash has also directed that the bail application of the co-accused be disposed of in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the abovementioned cases.

¶17

Thus, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), Sushila Aggarwal v. State

¶18

(supra), Aman Preet Singh(supra) and Nathu Singh (supra), the instant anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the applicant- Ravi Pratap is finally disposed of in terms that if applicant surrenders/appears before the trial court within 20 days from today i.e. before 31.01.2024 and moves an appropriate regular bail application, his regular bail application shall be disposed of by the trial court with utmost expedition in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above-mentioned cases.

¶19

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nathu Singh (supra) in order to facilitate him to surrender before the trial court, it is provided that till 20 from today i.e. til 31.01.2024 or till his surrender/appearance before the trial court within 20 days, whichever is earlier, the applicant in the event of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/Investigating Officer subject to his cooperation in the investigation for the interim relief.

¶20

It is further provided that if the applicant would not appear before the trial court within the period stipulated herein-before, he would not be able to take any benefit of this order.

¶21

Order Date :- 11.1.2024 Praveen

¶22

Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ravi Pratap v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Pratap v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

Ramesh Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Dinesh Dutt Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Hashim @ Baggha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Dist. Lko

Rasool Ahmed Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Ahmed Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. (Home), Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and Another