Dismissed

Sukhpal Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2024ABAIL/9790/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought anticipatory bail for a 2017 offence under IPC Sections 307 and others; charge sheeted in 2018, discharge application rejected. Non-bailable warrant issued after he avoided trial proceedings. Court found the applicant not entitled to protection and rejected the application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sukhpal Singh vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:191568

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9790 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sukhpal Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- R.P.S. Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicant for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.431 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 427, 307 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Pakbara, District Moradabad, during the pendency of the trial.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The charge sheet had been submitted in the year 2018. Thereafter, the applicant challenged the charge sheet before this Court by filing Application U/s 482 No.14738 of 2019 and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.04.2019 disposed of the application directing the applicant to appear and surrender before the court concerned within 30 days and stayed the arrest of the applicant for the same period. Thereafter, the applicant filed discharge application before the court below which was rejected vide order dated 02.12.2021. The whole prosecution story is false and malicious. The applicant has no criminal history. It is next submitted that the applicant's case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the applicant is apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that prima facie offence against the applicant is made out. The applicant had knowledge about the trial proceedings and he deliberately avoided the court proceedings, hence, the N.B.W. had been issued against the applicant on

¶10

18.04.2022. The applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected.

¶11

In Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2018) 13 SCC 813 , the Supreme Court has held that the satisfaction of the court for granting protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is different from the one under Section 439 Cr.P.C. while considering regular bail. In Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs. State of Haryana and another (2023) 8 SCC 181 , the Apex Court has opined that the relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest.

¶12

Considered the argument raised by counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. On perusal of the record, it is apparent that the applicant had knowledge about the trial proceedings and he filed 482 Application and discharge application. Since the non bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant in the year 2022, no interference is warrant by this Court.

¶13

The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected .

¶14

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of anticipatory bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶15

Order Date :- 6.12.2024 Meenu Singh

¶16

Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sukhpal Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sukhpal Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

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

Ajay vs State of U.P. and Another

Govind and 3 Others vs State of Up and Anothers

Smt Reena Jain and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Tanzeem @ Mohammad Tanzeem vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Marajeena vs State of Up