Allowed

Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2024NABAIL/8728/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS allowed in FIR involving offences under sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), and 74 BNS. Court granted bail till submission of police report due to contradictions in statements and lack of medical support for prosecution case.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till submission of police report on personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:156641

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8728 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Sisodia,Shashank Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

This application under section 482 B.N.S.S. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.610 of 2024, under sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) and section 74 B.N.S., P.S. Kotwali City, District Bijnor.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. In the first information report, there is no allegation against the applicant of outraging the modesty of the informant/ victim. The medical report does not support the prosecution case. The doctor in his report has stated that the victim had alcohol on her breath. There are contradictions in the statement of the informant/ victim under sections 180 and 183 of B.N.S.S. The said contractions discredit the prosecution case. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. It is next submitted that the investigation is going on and the applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the application for grant of anticipatory bail be confined only till the submission of police report.

¶11

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant and in particular the fact that there are contradictions in the statement of the victim under sections 180 and 183 of B.N.S.S., the fact that the medical report does not support the prosecution version, without commenting on merits of

¶12

the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicant Sunil Kumar be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till the submission of police report, if any, under section 193 (3) Cr.P.C., on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶16

(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.

¶17

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶18

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶19

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶20

The application stands disposed of.

¶21

Order Date :- 25.9.2024 S.S.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases