Disposed

Rajpal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2024ABAIL/10066/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a Section 306 IPC case concerning alleged abetment of suicide. The court found the FIR's ingredients insufficient and granted interim anticipatory bail till submission of the police report, subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Rajpal released on anticipatory bail till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to condi

Rajpal vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:174412

¶2

Court No. - 67

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10066 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rajpal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilendra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

This application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 346 of 2024, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. As per the allegations in the first information report, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are not made out. The applicant, in no manner, abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. In support of his submission, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amalendu Pal vs. State of West Bengal arising out of Criminal Appeal No. 2091 of 2009 decided on 11.11.2009. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. It is next submitted that the investigation is going on and the applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Counsel for the applicant further submits that the application for grant of anticipatory bail be confined only till the submission of police report.

¶11

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicant and the fact that as per the allegations in the first information report, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are not made out, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the

¶12

applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicant- Rajpal be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

(ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶17

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶18

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶19

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶20

The application stands disposed of.

¶21

Order Date :- 7.11.2024 Sachin Mishra

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajpal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajpal v. State of U.P.

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

Similar cases

Balram vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Singh vs State of Up and Another

Bobi vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Mujeev Alias Najibul Hasan and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Dev Kumar and Another vs State of U.P.