Allowed

Devi Dayal Singh v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC27 Nov 2024ABAIL/11240/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in an FIR under Sections 307 and 120-B IPC on the ground of parity with a co-accused who had already been granted bail. The court held that pendency of other cases and criminal history do not alone justify denial of bail absent exceptional circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to furnishing personal bond with two sureties and standard conditions including cooperation with investigation and appearance in court.

Devi Dayal Singh vs State of Up and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:193859

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11240 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Devi Dayal Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case No. 1669 of 2006, under Sections 307 & 120-B of IPC, Police Station - Faizganj Behta, District - Budaun, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has claimed parity with the co-accused Hardwari Lal, who has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 3257 of 2023 vide order dated 19.04.2023. Since the case of the applicant is at par with the co-accused who has already been granted anticipatory bail, the applicant is also entitled for the same on the ground of parity. Learned counsel has also stated that the applicant has criminal history of one case which has been explained vide supplementary affidavit filed today in court.

¶10

The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by learned AGA. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him.

¶11

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 , the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶12

In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground of criminal antecedent.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, evidence on record, pending trial and in the light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 coupled with the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 , without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Devi Dayal Singh, involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶15

i. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶16

ii. that 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; iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶17

iv. that in case, the charge-sheet is submitted, the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶18

v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶19

vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date

¶20

fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail of the applicant.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶23

Order Date:- 11.12.2024 Siddhant

¶24

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Devi Dayal Singh v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devi Dayal Singh v. State of Up 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

Ayyub vs State of Up

Raj Kumar vs State of Up and 3 Others

Radhika Devi vs State of Up

Ashish Mishra vs State of U.P.

Ashutosh Bajpai vs State of Up

Loknath vs State of U.P.