Allowed

Surendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2024ABAIL/391/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted interim anticipatory bail to the Applicant pending the filing of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. in a case involving abetment to suicide.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted pending the filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on execution of a personal bond with two sureties.

Surendra vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:17129

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 391 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Surendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amarjeet Singh,Noor Alam Khan,Shrikant Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Learned AGA informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including upto date case diary and the investigation in this case is also pending.

¶7

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

¶8

The instant application has been moved by the applicant- Surendra in Case Crime No. 470/2023, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Phardhan, District Lakhimpur Kheri, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. Prior to the FIR lodged in the instant case an FIR was lodged by the applicant against the deceased on 13.9.2023 stating therein that the deceased was an exorcist and he was doing some occult prayers in order to treat his daughter-in-law and had also taken Rs. 20,000/- from him by deceiving but his daughter-in-law could not get any benefit by the prayers made by the deceased and he also pressurized the father of the applicant to profess christian religion .

¶10

It is vehemently submitted that the FIR with regard to the instant case has been lodged by the wife of above stated Vinod Kumar (deceased) alleging therein that the father of the applicant was pressurizing the deceased to part some money in order to make a compromise and in this regard on the relevant day deceased had paid Rs. 49,000/- to the father of applicant but he had further demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- and aggrieved by the same the deceased has committed suicide.

¶11

It is vehemently submitted that the allegations as levelled in the FIR are patently absurd and could not be believed as filing of FIR with regard to the commission of an offence may not be termed as an abetment as defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, as it is a right vested in any aggrieved person, of the commission of an offence to lodge an FIR and the concerned Authorities are duty bound to record the same in view of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C.. Therefore lodging of an FIR may never be termed as an abetment.

¶12

It is further submitted that the applicant is not having any criminal history and he has so far cooperated in the investigation and would continue to cooperate in the investigation and will present himself before the Investigating Officer as and when his appearance would be required. Identically placed co-accused person, namely, Dablu Alias Love has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, vide order dated 10.01.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 41 of 2024.

¶13

Learned AGA on the other hand opposes the prayer of the applicant on the ground that an innocent person has committed the suicide by the abetment given by the applicant.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record it is reflected that earlier to the lodging of the FIR of the instant case an FIR was lodged by the applicant against deceased and it is with regard to that FIR allegations have been made against the applicant as well as against the other co-accused persons that they were demanding more money for making compromise, however, having regard to Section 320 of Cr.P.C. the compromise could only be made by the victim and therefore the applicant was not in a position to make any compromise. Identically placed co-accused person, namely, Dablu Alias Love has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court.

¶15

Having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra : (2011) 1 SCC 694 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1 as well as Nathu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others, 2021(6) SCC 64, MANU/SC/0360/2021 and keeping in view all facts and circumstances of the case, the liberty of the applicant may be protected for limited period of time. Thus, it is provided that till filing of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is pending.

¶16

In result the instant anticipatory bail application moved on

¶17

behalf of the applicant- Surendra is disposed of in terms that till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. in the event of arrest of the applicant by the S.H.O. of the Police Station concerned, Investigating Officer or under any process of the Court he shall be released on anticipatory bail forthwith in the above noted case on his executing a personal bond with two sureties to the satisfaction of SHO/ Investigating Officer/ Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:-

¶18

(1) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation or even for discovery of any fact by a police officer as and when required;

¶19

(2) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶20

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

¶21

If in the opinion of the SHO/I.O default of any of the condition placed above is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for them trial to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and they can apprise this Court for cancellation or modification of the order.

¶22

It is clarified that all the observations contained in this order are only for disposal of this anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial proceedings in any manner.

¶23

Order Date :- 26.2.2024

¶24

Praveen

¶25

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

Surendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

Rashid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Ram Murat Yadav Vs Directorate of Enforcement Thru. Assistant Director Govt. India

Imran Khan Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and Another

Puneet Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. S.P. C.B.I./Acb Lko.

Gajraj Kunwar Jain Vs Govt. of India Thru. Assistant Director , Directorate of Enforcement Allahabad

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