Allowed

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

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2024/591/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought in a Section 306 IPC abetment-of-suicide case in Gonda; the court noted the postmortem attributed death to chronic lung and liver disease rather than poison and prior enmity between the parties, and granted anticipatory bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond Rs. 50,000 with two like sureties, subject to conditions including surrender before trial court within 20 days.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:24282

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 591 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Patandeen Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Singh 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 charge sheet in this case has also been submitted.

¶7

Heard Shri Amar Singh, 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- Patandeen, in Case Crime No. 382 of 2022, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, 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 applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. The F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by the son of the deceased, namely, Mahesh, alleging therein that on 09.06.2022 at about 6:00 pm. the applicant and other coaccused persons arrived at the house of the deceased and abused him and also threatened him to abduct his daughter and feeling humiliated by the same, the deceased had consumed poison and died.

¶10

It is vehemently submitted that it is a case of absolute false implication, as the postmortem report of the deceased would evidently demonstrate that he had died due to chronic lung and liver disease and the death of the deceased could not be associated with consuming of any poisonous substance.

¶11

It is further submitted that earlier the F.I.R. was lodged by the deceased against the brother of the applicant alleging that the brother of the applicant had enticed away his daughter, however, in that case the brother of the applicant was granted bail and the charge sheet has been filed.

¶12

It is also submitted that after lodging of the F.I.R. of the instant case on false and concocted grounds, the applicant and other co-accused persons have approached this Court by filing a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4158 of 2022 and vide order dated 22.06.2022 protection from arrest was granted and now the charge sheet has been submitted without arresting the applicant and the applicant has cooperated throughout investigation.

¶13

It is next submitted that the doctor Suhel Ahmad have categorically stated that the deceased had died due to lung and liver disease and the same may not be associated with any crime.

¶14

It is further submitted that the allegations, as levelled in the F.I.R. and in the statement of the witnesses is not corroborated by any medical evidence and it is only on account of the previous enmity the F.I.R has been lodged against the applicant. Applicant is not having any criminal history and is ready to cooperate in the trial and would remain present before the trial court as and when his presence would be required and there is no apprehension that after being released on anticipatory bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶15

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of anticipatory bail of the applicant.

¶16

Considering the fact that the allegations in the F.I.R. are pertaining to the fact that feeling humiliated by the abuses given by the applicant and other co-accused persons, the deceased had consumed some poisonous substance, which has not been primafacie corroborated by the postmortem report of the deceased, wherein the cause of death has been ascertained as 'chronic lung and liver disease' as well as the enmity, which is existing between the parties and also the fact that the liberty of the applicant was protected during the course of investigation, a case of anticipatory bail, having regard to the law laid law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra : (2011) 1 SCC 694, Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1 and in Nathu Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others ':(2021)6 SCC 64, is emerging in favour of the applicant.

¶17

Thus, the instant anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant- Patandeen is allowed and it is provided that in the event of arrest of the applicant under any process of the trial court or on his appearance before trial court within 20 days from today i.e. till 08.04.2024, whichever is earlier, he shall be

¶18

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 S.H.O. concerned/Investigating/Arresting officer/Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶19

(i). The applicant if not arrested earlier, shall surrender before the trial court within 20 days from today and will cooperate in the trial.

¶20

(ii). The applicant shall Cooperate in the investigation and will make himself available as and when required by the Investigating officer of the case, even for the recovery of any fact, in case of further investigation.

¶21

(iii). The applicant shall not make any attempt to influence the prosecution witnesses and will also not commit any crime during his release on anticipatory bail.

¶22

(iv). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and specially when the prosecution witnesses are present in court.

¶23

(v). 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.

¶24

If in the opinion of the trial court default of any of the condition placed above 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 shall proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶25

It is clarified that all the observations contained in this order are only for disposal of this anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial proceedings in any manner.

¶26

Order Date :- 19.3.2024 Praveen

¶27

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Patandeen v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Jai Prakash Pandey @ Bindu Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Gopal Kumar Singh @ Gopal Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. and Another

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

Siddharth Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Ashish Kumar Singh Sisodiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Rafiq @ Java Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others