Allowed

Shyam Singh v. State of Up

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2024ABAIL/5967/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a case involving Sections 323, 307, 504, and 506 IPC. Relying on Sushila Aggarwal, the court issued a personal bond with standard conditions, rejecting detailed merit consideration.

What did the court decide?

Applicant enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each subject to conditions.

Shyam Singh vs State of Up — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:112472

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5967 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shyam Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Srivastav,Rajesh Kumar Srivastava

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manish Yadav

¶6

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.

¶7

Mr. Pankaj Dwivedi, Advocate has filed Vakaltnama on behalf of informant, which is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Mr. Gaurav Srivastav, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Pankaj Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant.

¶9

This anticipatory bail application (under Section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.45 of 2022, under Sections 323, 307, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Iradat Nagar, District Agra.

¶10

After loding the FIR, the investigation was started and after investigation, the investigating officer has submitted final report on 25.07.2022. Being aggrieved, the informant has filed protest petition on 04.03.2023, thereafter, the learned Magistrate has ordered for further investigation vide order dated 01.04.2023. During further investigation, again the investigating officer did not find any credible evidence against the applicant, hence, again submitted final report on 29.06.2023. Again the informant has filed second protest petition on 07.12.2023 and the court below in a routine manner took cognizance and vide order dated 12.02.2024 has summoned the applicant and other co-accused persons.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant in fact no such incident has taken place as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. He further submits that earlier the applicant side lodged FIR against the injured and informant under Section 302 IPC in which the applicant was examined as PW-1.

¶12

Before one day of his examination, the impugned FIR has been lodged implicating the applicant. During course of instigation, the injured was examined and as per injury report as well as statement of the doctor, the injury was not found dangerous to life. He further submits that similarly placed co-accused Viri Singh and Gyan Singh @ Gyani have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.4163 and 3982 of 2024, copy of bail orders have been placed on record. He further submits that the applicant is having previous criminal history of one case which is lodged by the informant aise. He further submits that there is apprehension of imminent arrest of the applicant and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he 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.

¶15

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Shyam Singh, involved in the aforesaid case crime 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:-

¶16

(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 to any police officer.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek

¶20

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 applicant.

¶21

(v) In case, the applicant misuses 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 .

¶22

(vi) The applicant 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 his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶23

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶24

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

¶25

Order Date :- 15.7.2024 Ajeet

¶26

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

Shyam Singh v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Singh 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

Similar cases

Krishna Kumar Kalra (Since Deceased) through His Lr's Vs U.P.Khadi and Village Indurtries Board Lko.through Its

U.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board Lucknow Thru C.E.O. Vs Krishna Kumar Kalra S/O Late Thakur Das Kalra and Anr.

Amar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Nadim vs State of U.P.

Ashok Kumar vs State of U.P. & Others

Junaid and Another vs State of Up and Another