Allowed

Rajveer Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2024ABAIL/8356/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant based on parity with a co-accused who had already been released. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents that pendency alone cannot deny bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Rajveer Singh was released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions.

Rajveer Singh vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:182184

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8356 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rajveer Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Sharma,Shobh Nath Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Shobh Nath, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant today is taken on record.

¶9

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.0473 of 2022 registered under Sections 379, 420, 411 IPC at Police Station- Sadar Bazar, District Agra with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that co-accused person Banwari Lal Sharma@Banwari, has already been granted anticipatory bail by the same Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.11.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.11414 of 2022. Therefore, the present applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that there is a criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant which has been explained. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he will cooperate in the trial failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

¶11

The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. 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

¶13

another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 , the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in 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 judgements passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 and in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another , (2022) 10 SCC 51 , the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶15

Let the accused-applicant- Rajveer Singh be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

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

¶17

(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;

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(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;

¶21

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶23

Order Date :- 21.11.2024 Sumit S

¶24

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajveer Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajveer Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Baba Seth Alias Baba Khan vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Kumar Maurya vs State of Up and 2 Others

Sonu Kumar vs State of U.P.

Mehraj @ Mahraj Uddin vs State of Up

Rahul vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kishor Ram vs State of Up and Another