Allowed

Babbe Urf Sageerudin v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Oct 2024ABAIL/9927/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant Babbe Urf Sageerudin in a case under Section 384 IPC, allowing bail till the conclusion of trial subject to standard conditions including a personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties subject to standard conditions.

Babbe Urf Sageerudin vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:168440

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9927 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Babbe Urf Sageerudin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Babbe Urf Sageerudin in connection with Case Crime No. 501 of 2022, under section 384 IPC, P.S.-Etmadadulla, District- Agra.

¶8

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. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Charge sheet in the matter has been submitted. It is further submitted that the criminal history of the applicant is explained in the affidavit and he has been cooperative during course of investigation. It is further submitted that co-accused 1. Anuj Chauhan, 2. Rinka Pandit @ Rinku Bhardwaj, 3. Tinku @ Sumit Kumar, 4. Ritesh Sisodhiya have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10379 of 2023 by order dated 15.9.2023. 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.

¶9

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

¶10

In the present case the offences levelled against the applicant are punishable with the imprisonment for a maximum period upto seven years. After filing of charge sheet no custodial interrogation is required.

¶11

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and

¶12

another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding 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, 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.

¶15

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.

¶16

The anticipatory bail application is allowed accordingly.

¶17

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 :-

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

iii. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the

¶21

offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

Order Date :- 22.10.2024 Fhd

¶25

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

Babbe Urf Sageerudin v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babbe Urf Sageerudin 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Yadav vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Vikash Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Golu vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Verma vs State of Up and Another

Sunil Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Titu @Rajendra vs Smt Pinki