Allowed

Bhannu @ Amarjeet v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2024ABAIL/1546/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Bhannu @ Amarjeet apprehending arrest in a theft case. Finding the prosecution case improbable, the court made an interim order absolute and granted bail subject to conditions including cooperation with investigation and reporting within twenty days.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed; applicant to furnish a personal bond and two sureties with conditions.

Bhannu @ Amarjeet vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:52819

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1546 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Bhannu @ Amarjeet Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Raman Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the accusedapplicant apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.265 of 2024 under Section 457, 380 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Maholi, District Sitapur.

¶8

3. Vide order dated 12.7.2024 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court the applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail. The order is extracted below:-

¶9

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

¶10

2. The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in FIR No.265 of 2024, under Sections 457, 380 IPC, Police Station Maholi, District Sitapur.

¶11

3. In terms of the FIR it was alleged that on 18.04.2024 at the night, four accused came in the house of the informant and after entering the room, took away 35 bags of Lahi and on 19.04.2024, the informant came to know about the said theft.

¶12

4. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that on account of political enmity, a false case has been lodged. He argues that 35 bags, as alleged, are substantially heavy and cannot be stolen in the manner in which the FIR has been registered.

¶13

5. It is brought on record by learned AGA that no recovery was affected from the applicant, however, the name of the applicant surfaced in the statement of the co-accused.

¶14

6. Considering that allegations of theft of 35 bags which are heavy is prima-facie improbable coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, it would be appropriate to pass interim order to the extent that in pursuance of the FIR in question, the applicant Bhannu @

¶15

Amarjeet shall not be arrested till the next date of listing subject to following conditions:-

¶16

(i) That the accused-applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation;

¶17

(ii) That the accused-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; and

¶18

(iii) That the accused-applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶19

7. Issue notice to respondent no.2.

¶20

8. Steps to serve respondent no.2 shall be taken within a week.

¶21

9. List on 01.08.2024.

¶22

10. Meanwhile, State shall file its objection.".

¶23

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no criminal history. The investigation is still pending. He undertakes that the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation.

¶24

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

¶25

6. On due consideration to the above and the facts that the offences are triable by Magistrate, prima facie prosecution case appears to be improbable and also considering the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, the interim order passed by coordinate Bench of this Court dated 12.7.2024 is made absolute and anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶26

7. It is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant- Bhannu @ Amarjeet shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned with the following conditions:-

¶27

(i) The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses.

¶28

(ii) The accused-applicant shall report to the concerned police

¶29

station/investigating officer within twenty days from today and will remain present as and when the arresting officer /I.O./ S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation.

¶30

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

¶31

(iv) In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

¶32

Order Date :- 1.8.2024 Madhu

¶33

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bhannu @ Amarjeet v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhannu @ Amarjeet v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Juvenile X in Case Crime No 330 of 2023 Thru. His Mother vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Mohd. Faiz @ Faiz vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Anil Kumar Pandey vs Union of India Thru. Its Chief Secy. Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports and 3 Others

Dileep Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Vikas Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Dr. Pradeep Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag I U.P. Lko. and 2 Others