Allowed

Anoop v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2024ABAIL/7593/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in an FIR under Section 306 IPC. The court found that the ingredients for abetment of suicide were not made out based on the FIR and investigation material, noting that a co-accused had already been granted bail and the charge-sheet was submitted.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions including attendance in court and deposit of passport.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:151285

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7593 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Anoop Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raja Ullah Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned AGA for the State- opposite party no. 1, and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 1241 of 2017, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station Nigohi, District Shahjahanpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. As per the allegations in the first information report and the material collected during the course of investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are not made out. The applicant, in no manner, abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanchan Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 7554 of 2019 . It is next contended that identically placed co-accused Rajju Singh @ Rajpal Singh has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 25.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 2894 of 2024, Rajju Singh @ Rajpal Singh v. State of U.P. and another. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The investigation has been completed and the applicant has cooperated in the investigation. Charge-sheet has been submitted. No custodial interrogation is required. The applicant has been summoned by the trial Court. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant and, in particular, the fact that as per the allegations in the first information report and the material collected during the course of investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are not made out and identically placed co-accused Rajju Singh @ Rajpal Singh has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶11

In the event of arrest, the applicant- Anoop Singh, involved in the aforesaid case crime, be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicant shall make himself available on each and every date fixed in the matter by the court concerned;

¶13

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court;

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the concerned court.

¶15

Further, in default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

¶16

The application stands disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 17.9.2024 SKT/-

¶18

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

Anoop v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop v. State of U.P. 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

Vindhyachal Singh vs State of Up

Ram Sajeewan Patel vs State of U.P.

Sandeep and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Nisha vs State of U.P. and Another

Km Richa Tiwari vs State of Up and Another

Avdhesh and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others