Allowed

Sunil v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2024ABAIL/8978/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC in a 2015 rioting and abduction case after charge-sheet under added Section 364 IPC; court granted anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial with conditions, relying on Sushila Aggarwal.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on personal bond and two sureties each, with conditions against tampering, leaving India without permission, and intimidation of witnes

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:176369

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8978 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sunil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pushpendra Singh,Rukmani Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Pushpendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶9

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.0449 of 2015 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 364, 325 and 506 IPC at Police Station- Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant was granted anticipatory bail in the present case crime number vide order dated 16.7.2015 by the C.J.M., Bulandshahr and he has not misused said opportunity granted earlier on and has cooperated in trial. Subsequently, the final report (charge-sheet) has been submitted in the added Section of 364 I.P.C. as well. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is ready to cooperate in trial, failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has placed much reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court passed in case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in 2016 (1) SCC (Cri) 240 and Manoj Suresh Jadhav & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra , reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3428 , wherein the applicant therein was enlarged on anticipatory bail in the added sections U/S 438 Cr.P.C. after being enlarged on regular bail U/S 439 Cr.P.C.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the

¶13

submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out.

¶15

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court.

¶16

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Sunil be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶17

(i). 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

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

¶19

(iii). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶20

(iv). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶21

(v). 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 :- 11.11.2024 Ravi/-

¶24

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sunil v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Alka Alias Alkesh Devi vs State of Up

Satish Kumar Bharti vs State of U.P. and Another

Sheetala Prasad vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P.

Rohit Kumar Yadav vs State of Up

Rohit Kumar Yadav vs State of Up