Allowed

Ankit Kumar and 2 Others v. State of Up

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2024ABAIL/8270/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This anticipatory bail application was allowed. The court observed that the victim had nominated a co-accused for the assault while assigning the role of catching hold to the applicants, who have no criminal antecedents. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicants Ankit Kumar, Amit and Km. Pooja released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each.

Ankit Kumar and 2 Others vs State of Up — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:152650

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8270 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ankit Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anupam Anand, learned brief holder 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. 36 of 2020, under Sections 313, 323 IPC, Police Station Sahpau, District Hathras.

¶8

Counsel for the applicants contends that after investigation, the applicants were not charge-sheeted. They have been summoned by the trial court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. By placing reliance on the statement of the victim-PW-2 during the course of trial, it is contended that specific role of causing injury to her has been assigned to co-accused Rameshwar. The co-accused Rameshwar has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18373 of 2020 (Rameshwar Vs. State of U.P.). The role of catching hold has been assigned to the applicants. The applicants have cooperated in the investigation. No custodial interrogation is required. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest in the above mentioned case.

¶9

Learned brief holder for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, in particular the fact, that during the course of trial the victim-PW-2 in her statement has nominated the co-accused Rameshwar, who assaulted her, the applicants have been assigned the role of catching hold, without commenting on

¶11

merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶12

In the event of arrest, the applicants Ankit Kumar, Amit and Km. Pooja involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶13

(i) the applicants shall make themselves available on each and every date fixed in the matter by the court concerned;

¶14

(ii) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court;

¶15

(iii) the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the concerned court.

¶16

In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

¶17

The application stands disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 19.9.2024 Lbm/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ankit Kumar and 2 Others v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Kumar and 2 Others v. State of Up

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

Rinku Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Gopal Gupta vs State of U.P.

Amrit Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Jyoti @ Preeti and Another vs State of Up ANOther

Ram Kumar Alias Shiv Pujan Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ankur vs State of U.P. and Another