Allowed

Surendra Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Oct 2024ABAIL/9704/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the application seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the applicant on the ground of parity with a co-accused who had already been granted bail, citing relevant judgments from the Supreme Court and this Court.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties.

Surendra Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:168886

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9704 of 2024

¶4

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

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 1153 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, Police Station Quarsi, District Aligarh, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has the apprehension of his arrest and has claimed parity with the co-accused Usha Shivach, who has already been granted anticipatory bail by another Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 4750 of 2024 vide order dated 5.6.2024.

¶10

Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. Since the case of the applicant is at par with the co-accused who has already been granted anticipatory bail, the applicant is also entitled for the same on the ground of parity.

¶11

The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by learned AGA on the ground that the main accused person is the wife of the applicant, as such, his case is at a different footing. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the coaccused has not been disputed by him.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993

¶13

Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021, coupled with the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 825 without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Surendra Sharma involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶15

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

¶16

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;

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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;

¶20

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

¶21

It is made clear that 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.

¶22

Order Date :- 23.10.2024 Shalini

¶23

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Surendra Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Sharma v. State of U.P. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shubhankar Arya and Another vs State of U.P.

Ashok Kumar Patel @ Ashok Singh vs State of U.P.

Kishor Ram vs State of Up and Another

Shrikrishna Ram vs State of U.P.

Awadesh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P.

Surendra Urf Sahendra vs State of U.P. and Another