Allowed

Ram Bahadur @ Raj Bahadur v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2024ABAIL/2336/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court converted interim anticipatory bail granted to applicant into absolute bail on parity with co-accused, relying on previous surrender and Apex Court judgment, directing surrender to trial court with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail protection converted into absolute bail; directed to surrender to trial court within twenty days with personal bond and two sureties.

Ram Bahadur @ Raj Bahadur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:83721

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2336 of 2024 Applicant :- Ram Bahadur @ Raj Bahadur Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Singh Chauhan,Hanumant Lal Yadav

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

The applicant has moved the present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail in case crime/F.I.R No.163/2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 328 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Motigarpur, District Sultanpur.

¶8

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

¶9

This is second anticipatory bail application. The first anticipatory bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 08.08.2024 passed in CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1796/2024.

¶10

This Court while granting interim protection vide order dated 17.10.2024 has passed the following order:-

¶11

"This is the second anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶12

Heard learned counsel the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶13

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/F.I.R No.163/2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 328 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Motigarpur, District Sultanpur.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after rejection of the first anticipatory bail application, the co-accused namely, Urmila Devi has been granted interim protection by this Court vide order contained Annexure No.8 to the bail application. The applicant submits that on this ground the applicant who is father-in-law have also been granted anticipatory bail. Applicant seeks parity with the bail orders of aforesaid co-accused persons.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that applicant will cooperate in the investigation and further in the trial, if needed.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application however, does not dispute that role of

¶17

the present applicant is similar to that of co-accused who is mother-in-law. He further submits that viscera report is awaited.

¶18

Issue notice to respondent No. 2.

¶19

Learned Addl. Government Advocate prays for and is allowed 15 days' time to file counter affidavit.

¶20

List on 06.12.2024.

¶21

Considering the above aspect of the matter, perusal of the record as well as the fact that applicant seeks parity with the bail order of co-accused Urmila Devi (supra) and the applicant is undertaking to cooperate in the investigation as also the judgment of Apex Court passed in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant.

¶22

Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on 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.

¶23

The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from today and he will not influence the witness. The accusedapplicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶24

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

¶25

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation. Co-accused Urmila Devi who was assigned similar role has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 03.12.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks parity with the order of co-accused Urmila Devi.

¶26

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application, however, could not dispute the fact that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation. He further submits that charge-sheet in the matter has been filed.

¶27

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, as well as considering the fact that charge-sheet in the matter has been filed; he has cooperated in the investigation; co-accused Urmila Devi has been granted anticipatory bail as well as the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial, as also considering the dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)2020 SCC online SC 98 and without expressing any opinion on

¶28

the merit of the case, I am of the opinion that the interim protection granted earlier vide order dated 17.10.2024 is liable to be and is hereby made absolute.

¶29

In view of the above, the accused applicant is directed to surrender before trial court within twenty days from today. The accused applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail by the trial court on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, with the following conditions.

¶30

(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 tamper with the evidence;

¶31

(ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶32

(iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶33

(iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶34

(v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

¶35

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

¶36

In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed .

¶37

Order Date :- 13.12.2024 R.C.

¶38

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Bahadur @ Raj Bahadur v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Bahadur @ Raj Bahadur v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy. Home 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

Shobhit Yadav @ Mohit Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mohd. Hasnain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lucknow

Lateeq Alias Laheek Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Shadman Khan @ Mohammad Shadman vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Meenakshi and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko and Another

Dinesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 4 Others