Allowed

Sachin @ Mintu v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2024ABAIL/6124/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. granted on parity grounds since a co-accused had already received similar relief. The court released the applicant subject to standard conditions including furnishing personal and surety bonds and an undertaking not to interfere with evidence or intimidate witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Accused applicant released on anticipatory bail on personal bond and two sureties with undertaking not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.

Sachin @ Mintu vs State of Up and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:128600

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6124 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sachin @ Mintu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Prakash Dubey,Prashant Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Anand Prakash Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.295 of 2018 registered under Sections 420 and 468 IPC at Police Station- Kotwali Shamli, District Shamli with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that coaccused person Krishna Pal has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 5.4.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.3176 of 2024. Therefore, the present applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he will cooperate in the trial failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

¶9

In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed much reliance upon the judgment of Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out.

¶10

The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in

¶12

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 judgements passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 and in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another , (2022) 10 SCC 51 , the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶13

Let the accused-applicant- Sachin @ Mintu be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i). that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

(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;

¶16

(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶17

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶18

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶19

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

¶20

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶21

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶22

Order Date :- 8.8.2024 Ravi/-

¶23

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sachin @ Mintu v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin @ Mintu v. State of Up 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

Nafees Ahmad vs State of Up and 2 Others

Shahid vs State of U.P.

Tauhid and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Manish @ Manish Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jitendra Kumar vs State of Up and Another

Shani Verma vs State of U.P. and Another