Disposed

Hari Dubey Alias Hari Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Deptt. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2024ABAIL/8/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted interim anticipatory bail with conditions, including filing consumer discharge proceedings, trial summon, and release on arrest pending orderId case. Order fixes final hearing for 13.2.2024.

What did the court decide?

Issued notice to respondent-2 within four weeks. Granted liberty to apply for anticipatory bail on appearance or arrest within 20 days subject to conditions.

Hari Dubey Alias Hari Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Hari Dubey Alias Hari Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Deptt. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. Pooja Singh,Achleshwar Raj,Anshuman Singh,Surya Prakash Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

Learned AGA informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including upto date case diary.

¶6

Heard Dr. Pooja Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Hari Dubey Alias Hari Kumar in Case Crime No. 190 of 2021, under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Achal Singh, District Unnao, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.

¶8

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that it is a case of false implication, in fact the instant case is a counter blast of an FIR which was lodged by the brother of the complainant, namely, Deepak Dwivedi on 18.6.2021 and in that incident Amrit Prasad (father of the applicant ) had died and Chhotu Dubey and Hari Dubey (applicant) was injured on account of the assault given by six named accused persons including the injured persons of the instant case, namely, Rajesh.

¶9

It is vehemently submitted that the allegations of the FIR of the instant case were investigated by the Investigating Officer and after through investigation a closure report / Final Report was filed on the ground that the informant's side was aggressor and the injuries sustained by the injured Rajesh might have been the result of their own assault. However, a protest petition

¶10

was filed with considerable delay by the informant of this case and by passing order dated 1.4.2023 the Magistrate appears to have taken cognizance under Sections 190 (1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and summoned the applicant and other co-accused persons to face trial with regard to the offences under Sections 504, 506 IPC.

¶11

It is also submitted that this order has been challenged by the applicant and other co-accused persons before this Court by filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the same is still pending.

¶12

It is vehemently submitted that the trial court has not considered this aspect at all that the Investigating Officer while investigating the allegations of FIR has opined that injury which has been sustained by the injured Rajesh was the result of their own assault and was inflicted when they were assaulting the applicant / accused persons side.

¶13

It is also submitted that even if the injuries sustained by the injured Rajesh is taken on its face and the same may not attract Section 307 IPC. The applicant was not arrested by the Investigating Agency as there was no material or evidence was found in support of the allegations, however since the applicant has been summoned to face trial, he is apprehending arrest by the Court. Reliance in this regard has been placed by the applicant on Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773, Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. through Directo r : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 941 and Siddharth v. State of UP : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 615 and it is submitted that she, in case granted anticipatory bail, will cooperate in the trial.

¶14

Learned AGA on the other hand opposes the prayer of anticipatory bail of the applicant on the ground that he is an accused of committing heinous offence and the Magistrate has rightly summoned the applicant and other co-accused persons to face trial.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the allegations of the FIR lodged in this case was investigated by the Investigating Officer and a closure report / Final Report was submitted. It was only

¶16

on account of that a protest petition was moved and the Magistrate appears to have taken cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. and issued process against the applicant to face trial for commission of relevant penal sections.

¶17

Without commenting on merits and demerits of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court by providing an opportunity of being heard to the informant of the instant case, the liberty of the applicant may be protected.

¶18

Thus, issue notice to respondent no.2 returnable within four weeks.

¶19

Steps in this regard may be taken by learned counsel for the applicant within three working days from today.

¶20

List this case on 13.2.2024.

¶21

It is provided that by the next date of listing in the event of the arrest of the applicant- Hari Dubey @ Hari Kumar under any process of the trial court or on his appearance before the trial court within 20 days from today i.e. till 25.1.2024, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial court concerned.

¶22

The applicant if not arrested earlier, shall surrender before the trial court within 20 days from today i.e. on or before 25.01.2024 and will cooperate in the trial.

¶23

The applicant shall not make any attempt to influence the prosecution witnesses and will also not commit any crime during her release on anticipatory bail.

¶24

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and especially when the prosecution witnesses are present in court.

¶25

List as directed on 13.2.2023 , on which date, this application shall be decided finally.

¶26

In the meantime, counter affidavit may also be filed by State as well as by informant.

¶27

Order Date :- 5.1.2024

¶28

Muk

¶29

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Hari Dubey Alias Hari Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Deptt. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Dubey Alias Hari Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Deptt. Govt. Civil Sectt. 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

Islam @ Munna Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Ram Bhajan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Akash Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Others

Chhote Lal Lodhi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Hajari Kuldeep Alias Hajari Kureel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Shivam Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko