Allowed

Rajkumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Sept 2024ABAIL/7624/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, the court granted bail pending investigation. The court observed that the prosecution failed to show necessity for arrest or criminal antecedents, relying on constitutional liberties.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail conditionally on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties, subject to specific conditions including not leaving India and cooperating with the investigation.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:142570

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7624 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rajkumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Goyal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Rajkumar in Case Crime No.32 of 2023 under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C. and Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals Act and Section 3/5 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, Police Station - Fatehpur Sikri, District -Agra.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has no concern with the present matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further argued that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. If the applicant is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and cooperate with the investigation. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest by the police any time. It is further submitted that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773 , the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The investigation is pending.

¶9

In the present case, although the material has been relied upon by learned A.G.A. with regard to complicity of the applicant in the alleged crime. However, the sections in which the applicant is being proceeded with is punishable with imprisonment for a term extending upto seven years. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that the liberty of an individual shall not be deprived of except in accordance with the procedure established by law.

¶10

As per Section 60A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no arrest shall be made except in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time

¶11

being enforced. The aforesaid provision is an extension of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶12

As per Section 41 of Cr.P.C. it is provided that where an individual is proceeded with for an offence which is punishable upto the extent of seven years, it is necessary that the police officer concerned is satisfied that the arrest is necessary:-

¶13

(a) to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or

¶14

(b) for proper investigation of the offence; or

¶15

(c) to prevent such person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or

¶16

(d) to prevent such person from making 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 the police officer, or

¶17

(e) as unless such person is arrested, his presence in the Court whenever required cannot be ensured, and the police officer shall record while making such arrest, his reasons in writing.

¶18

While making such arrest the police office shall record the same in writing.

¶19

In the present case, learned A.G.A. has not pointed out that the arrest of the applicant is required to prevent the applicant from committing any further offence or for proper investigation of the offence or to prevent the applicant from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tamper such evidence.

¶20

Learned A.G.A. has also not raised any concern with regard to any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to disuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the police officer. It is also not the case of learned A.G.A. that the arrest of the applicant is required to ensure his presence before the Court whenever required.

¶21

Once the conditions of Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. has not been raised by the learned A.G.A. nor any material or circumstances has been shown to the conditions specified therein, then the liberty of the individual stands protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India read with Section 60A of Cr.P.C.

¶22

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

¶23

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 applicant 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.

¶24

In view of the above, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail in respect of offence described in para 2 of the present order. In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till submission of report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶25

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

¶26

(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 office.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

(v) The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself/herself available for interrogation whenever required.

¶30

(vi) The applicant 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.

¶31

(vii) The applicant shall maintain law and order.

¶32

(viii) The applicant shall at the time of execution of the bond, furnish his address and mobile number to Investigating Officer, and the court concerned.

¶33

(ix) The applicant shall regularly remain present during the

¶34

trial, and cooperate with the Court to complete the trial for the above offences.

¶35

(x) Non presence of the applicant or his 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.

¶36

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 applicant.

¶37

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

¶38

Order Date :- 3.9.2024 S.Prakash

¶39

Digitally signed by :- SHASHI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajkumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar 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

Ajay Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Lekhraj vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Roshni vs State of U.P.

Kishor Khan vs State of Up and Another

Sami Uz Zafar vs State of U.P. and Another