Allowed

Sant Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Allahabad HC10 Sept 2024ABAIL/2084/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge bench allowed anticipatory bail to Sant Prasad in a 2011 IPC case. The court distinguished prior precedent Ramesh noting the applicant's non-participation in trial. Despite age and delay, bail granted with personal bond and limited conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to personal bond, two sureties, cooperation in trial, and prohibition on leaving India without permission.

Sant Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:62616

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2084 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sant Prasad

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rakesh Mishra

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

1. The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.87 of 2011 under sections 323, 504, 506, 392 I.P.C., P.S. Kohdaur, district Pratapgarh.

¶8

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶9

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the incident took place in the year 2011. Twice, final reports were filed. On the protest petition filed by the complainant, summons were issued after treating the petition as a complaint case. Statements under sections 200 and 202 CrPC were recorded. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that thereafter, continuously on 58 dates, the complainant had not appeared in the complaint case. In the meantime, applicant and others filed an application under section 482 CrPC No.2982 of 2013 Om Prakash and others versus State of U.P. which was decided vide order dated 6.12.2023 (Annexure-11) directing the trial court to pass appropriate orders.

¶10

It is submitted that the applicant moved an application under section 256 CrPC for compliance of order dated 6.12.2023 (supra), however, it has been rejected by the trial Court. Thus, the applicant filed an application for anticipatory bail before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge which was also rejected and thus,

¶11

the applicant has filed the present application for anticipatory bail.

¶12

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant while opposing the contention of applicant's counsel has submitted that in view of judgment in Ramesh versus State through Dy. RFO, Hosur Section Gauribidanur Range, Chikkaballapura District - 562 101 , present application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable as the applicant has already put in appearance before the trial Court. It is submitted that the order dated 6.12.2023 (supra) was passed by the Court on the impression given by the applicant that the trial Court is to pass order under section 256 CrPC whereas considering the offence under Section 392 I.P.C., the said application is not maintainable.

¶13

In this context, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has produced order dated 6.12.2023(supra) through counsel before the trial court so as to comply order passed by the High Court. Apart from this, the applicant has not appeared before the trial court nor has he moved any application for exemption nor misused the liberty granted by the trial Court. The applicant filed this application after rejection of his application by the trial court.It is thus submitted that the applicant has not misused the liberty granted by the trial court and the judgment in the case of Ramesh(supra) is not applicable to the case in hand.

¶14

5. I have considered the submission and find that prima facie it appears that the applicant in purported compliance of order dated 6.12.2023 (supra) moved an application before the trial court bringing to its notice order passed by this Court and except this, he has not done anything nor participated in the trial, thus, in peculiar facts of this case, I am of the opinion that the judgment in the case of Ramesh (surpa) will not come in the

¶15

way of the applicant in maintaining this application for anticipatory bail.

¶16

On merit also, this Court finds that the incident is of 2011, twice final reports have been filed, the complainant has not appeared continuously on 58 dates before the trial court, coupled with the fact that the applicant is 67 years of age, as also the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶17

6. It is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶18

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial and he will not influence the witnesses.The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. Any other condition which the trial court may deem fit and proper may also be imposed.

¶19

7. In case of default, it would be open for the trial court to proceed in accordance with law.

¶20

8. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶21

Order Date :- 10.9.2024 kkb/

¶22

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sant Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sant Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

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

Amardeep Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sher Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Naresh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and Another

Suresh Kumar Dwivedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Adarsh @ Lucky vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Bhasru Alias Nasru vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another