Allowed

Sarvesh Kumar Sharma and Another v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2024ABAIL/7652/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous anticipatory bail application, the Allahabad High Court allowed bail for applicants charged under Section 380 IPC. The court granted relief primarily based on parity with co-accused who had already obtained bail, citing high court precedents regarding criminal history not automatically barring bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on ground of parity; release on personal bond with two sureties each subject to standard conditions.

Sarvesh Kumar Sharma and Another vs State of Up and… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:126530

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7652 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sarvesh Kumar Sharma And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Alpika Srivastava,Neeraj Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Neeraj Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material available on record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No. 118 of 2024, under Section 380 of IPC, Police Station - Vrindavan, District - Mathura, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶9

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants has claimed parity with the co-accused Ashok Kumar Sharma @ Agya and Bharat Kumar Sharma, who have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.5318 of 2024 vide order dated 6.6.2024. Since the case of the applicants is at par with the coaccused persons, who have already been granted anticipatory bail, the applicants are also entitled for the same on the ground of parity.

¶10

It is further stated that the applicants have criminal history of two cases which have been explained in the affidavit filed along with bail application.

¶11

The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by learned AGA. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him.

¶12

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 , the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself

¶13

cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶14

In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground of criminal antecedent.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, evidence on record, pending trial and in the light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 coupled with the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 , without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶16

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicants, Sarvesh Kumar Sharma and Neeraj Kumar Sharma , involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶18

i. that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii. that 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; iii. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous

¶19

permission of the court;

¶20

iv. that in case, the charge-sheet is submitted, the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶21

v. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶22

vi. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail of the applicants.

¶24

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶25

Order Date:- 6.8.2024 Siddhant

¶26

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sarvesh Kumar Sharma and Another v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvesh Kumar Sharma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ayyub vs State of Up

Saddam Alias Mohammad Saddam Husain vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Sakir vs State of Up

Jai Govind Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Kishor Ram vs State of Up and Another