Disposed

Vinod Kumar v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2024ABAIL/7657/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for an applicant implicated via FIR lodged by the deceased's wife alleging harassment leading to suicide. Counsel argued no specific allegations or instigation. The court granted anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial; personal bond Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in like amount, subject to listed conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:130970

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7657 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Suresh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under Section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.1042 of 2021, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Masuri, District Ghaziabad.

¶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. The FIR has been lodged by the wife of the deceased alleging therein that the applicant and his family members were harassing the deceased due to which the deceased has committed suicide. Earlier the applicant and other co-accused persons have challenged the FIR by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.12662 of 2021 before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.02.2022 has stayed the arrest of the applicant. He further submits that there is no credible evidence against the applicant even in the FIR there is no specific allegation made against the applicant but the investigating officer in a routine manner has submitted charge sheet and the court below has taken cognizance and summoned the applicant. He further submits that from perusal of FIR as well as statements of informant, 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

¶9

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. The applicant is having no previous criminal history. 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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

(i) 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.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(iv) 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.

¶17

(v) 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 .

¶18

(vi) 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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 13.8.2024 Ajeet

¶22

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinod Kumar v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar 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

Sharnbeer vs State of U.P.

Gajendra Pal vs State of U.P. and Another

Sajid Mansoori and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Sudheer Kumar Diwakar vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Shivani Srivas vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deepti Khamaru vs State of U.P. and Another