Disposed

Munnalal and 2 Others v. State of Up

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2024ABAIL/3970/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application in a complaint case arising from an old FIR under Sections 147-149 and 307 IPC. Citing parity with similarly placed co-accused already granted protection, the court enlarged the applicants on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on bonds and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on personal bond Rs.50,000 with two sureties each.

Munnalal and 2 Others vs State of Up — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:143546

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3970 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Munnalal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anuj Bajpai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Anuj Bajpai, learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under Section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Complaint Case No.1953 of 2007 (present complaint case no.2244 of 2022) arising out of Case Crime No.169 A of 2005, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC, Police Station Paraur, District Shahjahanpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the informant has lodged FIR against 16 accused persons including the applicants and after investigation, final report was submitted. Being aggrieved, the complainant has filed protest petition, which was treated as complaint case and after recording the statement of complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the applicants were summoned by the court below vide order dated 12.05.2008. He further submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated as a counterblast to the FIR lodged by coaccused Tejram against the informant under Section 302 IPC in which the informant and other co-accused persons have been convicted vide order dated 31.10.2018. He further submits that similarly placed co-accused, namely, Sant Kumar Singh and three others have filed anticipatory bail application no.11921 of 2023 and this Court vide order dated 21.12.2023 has granted protection till conclusion of trial, copy of order has been filed as Annexure No.7 to the affidavit. He further submits that since the similarly placed co-accused have been granted protection by this Court, the applicants are also entitled for the same relief. He further submits that applicants are having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 20 of the affidavit.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of

¶10

the applicants.

¶11

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicants, applicants is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98 . The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶12

In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants- Munnalal, Ramswaroop and Rajeshwar Singh, involved in the aforesaid complaint case be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicants 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 to any police officer.

¶14

(ii) The applicants shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶15

(iii) The applicants shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶16

(iv) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicants.

¶17

(v) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98 .

¶18

(vi) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶19

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at

¶20

liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

¶21

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.

¶22

Order Date :- 4.9.2024 Ajeet

¶23

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Munnalal and 2 Others v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munnalal and 2 Others v. State of Up

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

Pradeep Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Durgvijay and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Hriday Prasad Mishra and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Badre Alam vs State of Up and Another

Gopal Das Maurya vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahesh and Another vs State of U.P.