Allowed

Sumit Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2024ABAIL/2751/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Campbell Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a case under Section 306 IPC, directing release on personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions including appearance before trial court and not leaving India without permission.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, subject to specified conditions.

Sumit Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2751 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Sumit Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Pratap Singh,Ayushi Dixit,Rudra Pratap Singh,Vijay Krishna Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vivek Gupta, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶6

Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date.

¶7

Steps within a week.

¶8

Office to proceed accordingly.

¶9

By means of present anticipatory bail application, the applicant has shown his apprehension of arrest in Case Crime No. 167 of 2024 u/s 306 IPC, P.S. Bazar Shukl, District Amethi. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence alleged in the F.I.R.

¶10

The attention has been drawn towards the Annexure no. 8 which is an order dated 13.8.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court granting interim order to the applicant till filing of the police report subject to proper cooperation of the present applicant in the investigation.

¶11

Learned counsel has stated that in compliance of the aforesaid order the present applicant cooperated in the investiagation and charge-sheet has been filed on 9.9.2024. Learned counsel is not aware as to whether learned trial court took cognizance and issued summons or not inasmuch as no summons have been received by the applicant till date. Sri Singh has further submitted that this is a case where the F.I.R. has been lodged u/s 306 IPC and on the basis of material available on record there is no overt or positive act of the applicant to instigate or abet the victim to commit suicide, therefore, the ingredients of section 306 IPC are missing.

¶12

He has further submitted that the applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial proceedings in the same manner he has cooperated in the investigation, therefore, his liberty may be protected till conclusion of trial in view of dictum of

¶13

Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 .

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the applicant but could not dispute the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

The matter requires consideration.

¶16

Let the counter affidavit be filed in four weeks, rejoinder affidavit may be filed in one week thereafter.

¶17

List in the week commencing 27.1.2024 within top ten cases.

¶18

Without entering into the merits of the issue and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate with the trial proceedings, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the liberty of the applicant may be protected till conclusion of trial in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 ..

¶19

Therefore, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority/ court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶20

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

¶21

ii. that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant;

¶22

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

¶23

iv. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶24

v. that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶25

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.]

¶26

Order Date :- 16.12.2024 Om

¶27

Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sumit Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of 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

Rekha Upadhayay Vs Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement Prevention of Money Laundering Act Lko.

Mosin Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ragib @ S.P. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mukesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home

Niranjan Kumar vs Central Bureau of Investigation Thru Its Director New Delhi

Abhishek Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko