Allowed

Guddu @ Upendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2024ABAIL/9059/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Guddu @ Upendra Kumar in a complaint case involving multiple IPC offences. Relying on the fact that the applicant faced a similar fate to a co-accused who was already granted bail, the court released the applicant on bail till the conclusion of the trial subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is enlarged on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of the trial by furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each subject to standard conditions of appearance and non-interference.

Guddu @ Upendra Kumar vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:147907

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9059 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Guddu @ Upendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Dr. S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I, for the State, apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, the instant anticipatory bail application may be finally disposed off.

¶7

Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I, for the State.

¶8

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No.103 of 2023 arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.343 of 2019, under Sections 147,148,307,323,325,452,504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Meerapur, District Muzaffar Nagar during pendency of the trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present case has checkered history and twice in the matter after investigation final report has been submitted but subsequently on the protest petition filed by the informant, applicant along with other accused persons including co-accused Munna has been summoned in a complaint case as court concerned treated the protest petition filed by the informant as criminal complaint.

¶10

He further submits that as applicant has been summoned in a complaint case, therefore, his custodial interrogation is not required and he is having apprehension if he will appear before the

¶11

court concerned then he will be sent to jail.

¶12

He further submits that after considering entire facts of the case anticipatory bail application of co-accused Munna has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 9.8.2024 passed in Criminal Misc.Anticipatory Bail Application No. 7317 of 2024 and his bail order has been annexed as Annexure-12 to the affidavit filed in support of the instant application and the case of applicant is at par with him.

¶13

He further submits that therefore, considering the above argued facts, applicant should be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA although opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶16

Considering the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that similarly placed co-accused Munna has already been released on anticipatory bail by this Court and the case of applicant is at par with him, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of the trial.

¶17

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail anticipatory application is allowed.

¶18

In the event of arrest of the applicant -Guddu @ Upendra Kumar involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail till the conclusion of the trial case on furnishing a

¶19

personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court concerned with the conditions:-

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

(iv) that the applicant shall not temper with the evidence during the trial;

¶24

(v) that the applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

It is made clear that the 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.

¶28

Order Date :- 11.9.2024

¶29

SKM

¶30

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Guddu @ Upendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddu @ Upendra Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalji Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Mukesh Kumar Jaiswal vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt Meera and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Indrajeet and 3 Others vs State of Up and Another

Smt Sadhana and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Amina vs State of U.P. and Another