Chandra Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:61729

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 612 of 2023 Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- I.M. Pandey Ist,Arun Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in F.I.R./case crime No.592/2020, under Sections 306 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Faizabad(Ayodhya).

¶7

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

¶8

This Court while granting interim protection to the applicant vide order dated 03.03.2023 has passed the following order:-

¶9

"The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.592/2020, under Sections 306 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Faizabad(Ayodhya).

¶10

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

¶11

It is alleged in the prosecution case the regarding the incident which took place on 26.8.2020, the first information report was registered on 1.9.2020 with the allegation that the deceased/son of the complainant was called upon by his daughter in law Deepa Tiwari at Chandpur and there he was physically and mentally tortured and due to the atrocities, by the accused, his son committed suicide.

¶12

Learned counsel for applicant submits that co-accused Rama Kant Mishra who was assigned the similar role has been granted interim protection by this Court vide order dated 23.02.2023 passed in anticipatory bail application No.468 of 2023. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant is 68 years old, his case is on similar footing that of Rama Kant Mishra co-accused who has been granted interim protection. Even if the suicide note is taken to be true, the necessary ingredients to constitute offence under section 107 read with section 306 I.P.C. are missing. In support of his submission, learned counsel has relied on judgment of Supreme Court in Mariaono Anto Bruno vs. Inspector of Police AIR Online 2022 SC 502 (relevant para 38).

¶13

It is next submitted that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation. Charge sheet has been filed. He undertakes on behalf of the applicant that the applicant shall cooperate in the trial.

¶14

Issue notice to respondent No. 2.

¶15

Learned Addl. Government Advocate prays for and is allowed 15 days' time to file counter affidavit.

¶16

List on 03.04.2023.

¶17

On due consideration to the argument advanced as well as perusal of the record and the fact that co-accused Rama Kant Mishra has been granted interim protection by this Court and also the judgment of Supreme Court Mariaono Anto Bruno (supra), it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶18

Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶19

(1) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial and he will not influence the witnesses.

¶20

(2) The accused-applicant will remain present on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶21

(3) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court."

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that charge sheet in the matter has been filed. The applicant has cooperated in the investigation and further undertakes to cooperate in the trial.

¶23

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶24

On due consideration to the judgment of Supreme Court in Mariaono Anto Bruno vs. Inspector of Police AIR Online 2022 SC 502 as well as considering the fact that ingredients of Section 306 IPC are missing; charge sheet has been filed; he has cooperated in the investigation and further undertakes to cooperate in the trial, the interim protection granted vide order dated 03.03.2023 is made absolute in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

¶25

In view of the above, since, charge-sheet in the matter has been filed, if the applicant is summoned to face trial for offence in

¶26

question, he shall be released on bail by the trial court on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶27

(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;

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.

¶33

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.

¶34

In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed .

¶35

Order Date :- 6.9.2024 R.C.

¶36

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

Chandra Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shubham Mishra @ Hitesh Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

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

Mohd. Ahmad @ Sheru Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Santoshi @ Santokhi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dharmendra Mishra @ Babban Mishra @ Dharmendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Akhilesh Kumar Rawat vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.