Allowed

Mukesh Kumar Kannaujiya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2024ABAIL/7856/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Vivek Varma, J. granted anticipatory bail to Mukesh Kumar Kannaujiya in a case involving assault and attempt to murder. The court noted injuries were simple and the applicant was not the principal offender, granting bail until the police report subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till submission of police report under S. 173(2) Cr.P.C. upon furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties.

Mukesh Kumar Kannaujiya vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:136519

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7856 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Kannaujiya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajai Kumar,Ravindra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

This application under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.158 of 2024, under section 147, 149, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C., P.S. Phoolpur, District Varanasi.

¶8

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, seven person including the applicant are alleged to have assaulted the brother of the informant namely, Ramesh Viswakarma. As per medical report of the injured, the injured sustained four injuries. One injury was found on the head and the other injuries were found on non-vital part of the body. As per supplementary medical report, all the injuries were found simple in nature. The applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender, who assaulted the injured on his head. The applicant has no criminal history. Counsel for the applicant further submits that the investigation is still pending. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the application for grant of anticipatory bail be confined only till the submission of police report.

¶11

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant in particular, the fact that as per supplementary medical report, all the injuries were found simple in nature, the applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender, who assaulted the injured on his head, the fact that a vague and general role has been

¶12

assigned to the applicant, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicant Mukesh Kumar Kannaujiya be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/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:-

¶14

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

¶15

(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 or to any police officer;

¶16

(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 S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶17

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶18

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶19

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶20

The application stands disposed of.

¶21

Order Date :- 27.8.2024 Neeraj

¶22

Digitally signed by :- NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mukesh Kumar Kannaujiya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Kannaujiya 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar vs State of Up

Prempal and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Pankaj vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vindhyachal Singh vs State of Up

Smt Meena Devi Alias Meenu and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Pushpraj vs State of U.P. and Another