Allowed

Deepak Kumar Alias Tinkle v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2024ABAIL/10456/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the applicant's application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. till the conclusion of the trial, relying on the settled law that anticipatory bail need not be limited to investigation period if the applicant has not been arrested and is cooperating.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each.

Deepak Kumar Alias Tinkle vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:174837

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10456 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Alias Tinkle Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Deepak Kumar Alias Tinkle in connection with Case Crime No. 214 of 2019 under sections 147, 149, 332, 353, 427 IPC, P.S. Khatauli, District- Muzaffarnagar.

¶8

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. It is further submitted that allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that the applicant has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. in Cr. Misc. Writ Petition No. - 15407 of 2019 by order dated 30.5.2019. Now the charge sheet in the matter has been submitted and no process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant till date. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit. It is further submitted that identically placed co-accused Hariom Tandon has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 8447 of 2024 by order dated 4.9.2024. It is further submitted that no custodial interrogation is required in this matter from the applicant and as such, he is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶10

It reveals from the perusal of the record that no process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant till date and he has cooperated during the investigation and now no custodial interrogation is required from the accused/applicant.

¶11

Although the charge sheet has been submitted in this matter but in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶12

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶13

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶14

In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that :

¶15

"11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87 Cr.P.C that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.

¶16

In sofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170Cr.P.C, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during

¶17

investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."

¶18

Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till conclusion of trial in the matter.

¶19

The anticipatory bail application is allowed accordingly.

¶20

In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶21

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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

ii. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶23

iii.The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶24

iv.The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶25

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicant in accordance with law.

¶26

Order Date :- 7.11.2024 Fhd

¶27

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Deepak Kumar Alias Tinkle v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Kumar Alias Tinkle 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

Priyanka Tripathi vs Ashutosh Shukla

Sujeet Verma vs State of Up and 3 Others

Mahesh Chaudhary vs State of Up and Another

Mohd Saeed vs State of Up and Another

Somveer vs State of U.P. and Another

Satish Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another