Allowed

Satyabhan Manjhi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2024ABAIL/6669/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a case registered under Section 306 IPC, finding that no specific role or abetment was made out against him in the FIR. The court relied on the Sushila Aggarwal guidelines while imposing standard conditions for the release.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties.

Satyabhan Manjhi vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:113958

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6669 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Satyabhan Manjhi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Nishad,Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Priyansh Mishra, holding brief of Mr. Dhiraj Singh, learned counsel for the informant.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.10 of 2024, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Shankargarh, District Prayagraj.

¶8

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. As per allegation, the applicant has taken money from the deceased and upon demand of money, on 28.09.2023 the deceased was beaten by the accused persons, namely, Shivlal Manjhi, Santosh has beaten whereas another coaccused Satyabhama has beaten from slipper (Chappal), due to this reason, the deceased has committed suicide on 29.09.2023. He further submits that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 28.09.2023 whereas the impugned FIR has been lodged on 16.01.2023 i.e. three and half months of the alleged incident for which no plausible explanation has been mentioned. He further submits that neither the son of informant came to the house of the applicant for demanding money nor applicant has beaten to the son of the informant. The applicant is a old person aged about 60 years and is suffering from several old disease. Only general role has been assigned. No specific role assigned to the applicant. As per postmortem report, no external and internal injury has been found on the body of the deceased and cause of death has been mentioned as Asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that from

¶10

perusal of statement of the informant as well as witnesses, it cannot be inferred that applicant in any manner had ever instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Except general allegation, there is no other evidence available on record to show that essential ingredients of Section 107 IPC can be attracted, therefore, it cannot be said that present appellant had instigated, provoked, incited, urged or encouraged the deceased to commit the suicide. Essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are completely missing even the contents of abetment of suicide have not been there as provided under Section 107 IPC. Prima facie no alleged offence is made out against the applicant. 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.

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Satyabhan Manjhi 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:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.

¶15

(ii) 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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 applicant.

¶19

(vi) 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.

¶20

(vii) 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 18.7.2024/A.

¶24

Digitally signed by :- AFAQ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satyabhan Manjhi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyabhan Manjhi 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

Similar cases

Sandeep Mall vs State of U.P. and Another

Srinivas and 4 Others vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Nadim vs State of U.P.

Naresh vs State of Up

Amar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Tripathi and Another vs State of U.P. and Another