Allowed

Rajbahadur v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2024ABAIL/7679/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for Rajbahadur in a criminal case under Sections 447 IPC and 3/5 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Granting bail was based on parity with co-accused persons who had already been granted bail in a similar case, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and compliance of specific conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:131835

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7679 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rajbahadur Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Birendra Kaushik Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 940 of 2018, under Sections 447 IPC and 3/5 of The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984,, Police Station Naujhil, District Mathura, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶8

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has the apprehension of his arrest and has claimed parity with the co-accused persons, Naubhat Singh, Bahori Lal Pathak, Sunder @ Sundar Lal, Dharm Lal Pathak, Rajpal, Durga Prasad Pathak, Mahesh @ Mahesh Chand, Suresh, Ved Prakash, Chandpal Pathak and Surendra @ Suresh Chand, who have already been granted anticipatory bail by another Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 9353 of 2022 vide order dated 30.9.2022.

¶9

Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. Since the case of the applicant is at par with the co-accused who have already been granted anticipatory bail, the applicant is also entitled for the same on the ground of parity.

¶10

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.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993

¶12

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 judgment 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 applicant has made out a case for anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Rajbahadur 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:-

¶14

i. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

ii. that 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 or tamper with the evidence;

¶16

iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶17

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

¶18

v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 14.8.2024 Shalini

¶22

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajbahadur v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajbahadur 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

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