Allowed

Rahul Verma v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2024ABAIL/9270/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant Rahul Verma in a case under Section 406 IPC, holding it a fit case for bail till the end of trial based on settled principles he applied relevant case laws and non custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till the end of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties subject to specific conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:175550

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9270 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rahul Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anzar Haroon,Dharam Veer Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the AGA is taken on record.

¶7

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Rahul Verma seeking anticipatory bail in Case No. 34253 of 2024, Case Crime No. 211 of 2020, under Section 406 IPC, Police Station Matsena, District Firozabad.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

It is 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. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. During investigation process under Sections 82 CrPC was issued against the applicant. It is also submitted that one F.I.R. under Section 174-A IPC was lodged against the applicant as case crime no. 115 of 2023 which was challenged by the applicant before this Court through Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17996 of 2024 wherein vide order dated 3.10.2024 interim protection was granted to the applicant. It is also submitted that during investigation the applicant has approached this Court by way of Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CrPC No. 6222 of 2023 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 29.5.2023 relying upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 . In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. It is also submitted that no custodial interrogation is required.

¶10

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

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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, likelihood 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.

¶15

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

¶16

"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 87CrPC 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.

¶17

Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general

¶18

principles under Section 170CrPC, 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 because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."

¶19

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the end of trial.

¶20

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶21

In the event of arrest of the applicant, 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:-

¶22

(i) The applicant shall make himself available before the Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the trial.

¶23

(ii) 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶24

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶25

In case of default of any of the conditions, the same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.

¶26

Order Date :- 8.11.2024 safi

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul Verma v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Verma 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

Bablu vs State of Up Others

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

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

Amar Singh Yadav vs State of U.P.

Ashish Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Tinku Alias Shaikh Hasim vs State of U.P.