Allowed

Sanjiv v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2024ABAIL/9185/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the applicant in a case involving offences under sections 323, 504, 506, and 306 IPC. The court held it was a fit case for bail to continue till trial.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed. Applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:151530

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9185 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sanjiv

¶5

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

¶8

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Sanjiv in connection with Case Crime No. 106 of 2018 under sections 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC, P.S. Ujhani, DistrictBadaun.

¶9

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. It is further submitted that allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that no specific role of assault has been assigned to any of the accused persons in this case including the present applicant as well. It is further submitted statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the I.O. during investigation. It is further submitted that the offences levelled against the applicant are punishable with the imprisonment for a maximum period upto seven years. Charge sheet in the matter has been submitted and no process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant till date. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit. It is further submitted that no custodial interrogation is required in this matter from the applicant and as such, he is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶11

It reveals from the perusal of the record that no process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant till date and he has cooperated during the investigation and now no custodial interrogation is required from the accused/applicant.

¶12

Although the charge sheet has been submitted in this matter but

¶13

in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶14

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶15

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶16

9. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that :

¶17

"11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87 Cr.P.C that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.

¶18

In sofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170Cr.P.C, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely

¶19

because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."

¶20

Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till conclusion of trial in the matter.

¶21

The anticipatory bail application is allowed accordingly.

¶22

In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his 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 :-

¶23

i. 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.

¶24

ii. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶25

iii.The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶26

iv.The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶27

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicant in accordance with law.

¶28

Order Date :- 18.9.2024 Fhd

¶29

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjiv v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjiv 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

Similar cases

Bheem Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Bashir Khan and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Kumar vs State of Up

Raju Thakur vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Manju Lata and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Nasir Quraishi vs State of U.P. and 11 Others