Applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 406 IPC, claiming parity with co-accused already granted anticipatory bail by another Bench. The State did not dispute the parity. The court granted anticipatory bail on the ground of parity, subject to standard conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:113934
Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5508 of 2024
Applicant :- Sonu Rathor Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shitala Sahay Srivastav,Sudhir Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
RIVAL CONTENTIONS: (Arguments on behalf of applicant)
(Arguments on behalf of opposite party/State)
CONCLUSION:
on record, pending trial and in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021, coupled with the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 825 without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed on the ground of parity.
i. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
ii. that 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
iv. that in case, the charge-sheet is submitted, the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
Order Date :- 18.7.2024\Shalini
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant, claiming parity with a co-accused already granted anticipatory bail in the same FIR under Section 406 IPC, is entitled to anticipatory bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶6
1993 Crl.L.J. 938
Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of InvestigationRelied on¶6
MANU/SCOR/22410/2021
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherRelied on¶6
2022 SCC Online SC 825 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sonu Rathor
State of U.P.
Another
Krishan Pahal
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
