Allowed

Chandu and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2024ABAIL/6152/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, considering the nature of accusation and absence of criminal history, allowed bail to the applicants with conditions to ensure cooperation during investigation and trial.

What did the court decide?

The applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 60,000 with two sureties and complying with specified conditions.

Chandu and Another vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:173851

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case : - CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6152 of 2024 Applicant :- Chandu And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yogendra Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 291 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 352, 324, 307, 504 IPC, Police Station Kankerkhera, District Meerut, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The first information report was lodged against five named persons, including applicants, alleging that they have caused injuries by sharp edged weapons to the injured. The injured has sustained simple injuries. It is further submitted that during investigation, applicants were granted anticipatory bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 10.12.2021 and 06.01.2022 for the period till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and applicants have never misused the liberty of anticipatory bail. Now charge sheet has been submitted thus, applicants are no more require for further investigation. Lastly, it was stated that applicants have no criminal history and that in case, the applicants were granted anticipatory bail, they

¶8

shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶11

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra , (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶12

In the instant case, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶13

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶14

In the event of arrest of applicants, Chandu and Afsar in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs.60,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

(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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶16

(ii) the applicants would co-operate during trial and would not

¶17

misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

(iii) the applicants would appear before the court concerned on dates fixed by it.

¶19

(iv) the Applicants would not tamper with evidence in any manner.

¶20

In default of any of the conditions, the Court concerned shall be liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

¶21

Order Date :- 6.11.2024 RKM

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chandu and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandu and Another v. State of U.P.

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

Inder Pal Singh Tejan and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Garun Jaiswal and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Kushwaha and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Kesav Kumar Anand and Others vs State of Up and Another

Smt Neetu Sharma vs State of Up and Another

Sunil Rajpoot and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another