Allowed

Mohit Kumar and Another v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2024ABAIL/7341/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under S. 438 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court granted relief to Mohit Kumar and Tarun accused of offences under various IPC sections related to throwing bricks and causing injury. The court noted lack of societal impact, no criminal history, and no evidence of over-implication.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted for offences described in the application up to the filing of the charge sheet, subject to compliance with conditions including furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two suret

Mohit Kumar and Another vs State of Up and… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:135644

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7341 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mohit Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- M.P.S. Chauhan,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Sri M.P.S. Chauhan, Advocate has appeared on behalf of informant and submits that he has no instruction.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

¶8

The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants - Mohit Kumar and Tarun in Case Crime No.0112 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 427, 323, 307, 506, 406 I.P.C., Police Station - Gabhana, District - Aligarh.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that as per allegation in the First Information Report, it is alleged that applicant along with other accused persons have thrown bricks as a result of same, injured has suffered injuries. The role of firing has been assigned to co-accused Manoj and Arjun. It is submitted that injuries sustained by injured are simple in nature and the injury report is at page 36 of the paper book. It is submitted that at the best, offence under Section 323 IPC would be made out against applicants, which is bailable offence. It is submitted that there is over implication in the present case. It is further submitted by learned counsel for applicants that applicants have no criminal history and if the applicants are enlarged on anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty and cooperate with the investigation. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest by the police any time.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer but does not dispute the factual matrix.

¶11

It is not shown by learned AGA that the offence in question will

¶12

have impact on society at large. It is not shown that act causes harm to the society. The accusations arise out of dispute between individuals. It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would disentitle the applicants for relief of anticipatory bail. Learned AGA has not raised concern that any prejudice would be caused to free, fair and full investigation in the event the applicants are granted anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶13

Learned Counsel for opposite parties has not placed any criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant has no criminal history.

¶14

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicants fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶15

It is settled principle of law that a person who is accused of committing criminal offence is required to be prosecuted in respect of the act committed by him. Over-implication of an accused refers to situations where an individual is unduly or excessively implicated in a crime or wrongdoing. Such over implication may be based on external influence or false accusations. It is crucial for the justice delivery system to balance the need to hold perpetrators accountable with protecting the rights of the accused. Prosecuting a person for a higher offence than the offence committed by accused would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. It is important that the rule of law prevail and the prosecution of an accused is based on objective assessment of the material and circumstances.

¶16

In view of above, applicants are granted anticipatory bail in respect of offence described in para 3 of the present order. In the event of arrest of the applicants, they shall be released on anticipatory bail till submission of charge sheet on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶17

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police office as and when required.

¶18

(ii) 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 themselves from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶19

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court concerned.

¶20

(iv) In the event, applicants change residential address, the applicants shall inform the court concerned/Investigating Officer about new residential address in writing.

¶21

(v) The applicants shall cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required.

¶22

(vi) The applicants shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police.

¶23

(vii) The applicants shall maintain law and order.

¶24

(viii) The applicants shall at the time of execution of the bond, furnish their address and mobile number to investigating officer, and the court concerned.

¶25

(ix) The applicants shall regularly remain present during the trial, and cooperate with the Court to complete the trial for the above offences.

¶26

(x) Non presence of the applicants or their counsel before the court concerned shall be construed as violation of the present order and the court concerned would be at liberty to take coercive measures in accordance with law.

¶27

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicants.

¶28

With the directions made above, the anticipatory bail application stands allowed .

¶29

Order Date :- 23.8.2024

¶30

D. Tamang

¶31

Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohit Kumar and Another v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Kumar and Another 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Harbeer vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Akil and 8 Others vs State of Up Another

Bhagwan Singh Alias Bhagwant vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuldeep Tyagi vs State of U.P.

Saleem vs State of U.P. and Another