Dismissed¶16

Sanju @ Rishabh Jaisawal v. State of Up

Allahabad HC20 Jan 2025ABAIL/11461/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court anticipatory bail rejection under Section 438 CrPC; applicant Sanju @ Rishabh Jaisawal; Case Crime No.73 of 2024, Sections 379/411/413/414/482 IPC, P.S. Sigra, Varanasi; alleged purchase of stolen motorcycles from co-accused; recovery of nine motorcycles; earlier bail in Case Crime No.41 of 2024; discretion under S.438 to be exercised with circumspection; rejected with two-week surrender window and interim protection from coercive steps; single bench of Deepak Verma, J.; dated 20.1.2025; neutral citation 2025:AHC:9045.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail rejected; however, the applicant may surrender before the court below within two weeks and apply for regular bail, which shall be considered per law, and no coercive measures shall be taken against him for two weeks. ¶16

Sanju @ Rishabh Jaisawal vs State of Up — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Sanju @ Rishabh Jaisawal is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in Case Crime No.73 of 2024 (Sections 379, 411, 413, 414, 482 IPC), Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

Without expressing any opinion on merits, and considering the submissions and the nature and gravity of the accusation, the court found no good ground for anticipatory bail and rejected the applicant's anticipatory bail application.

¶13

Key takeaways

If the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within two weeks and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law.ratio¶15
For a period of two weeks from the date of the order, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail under S.438 Cr.P.C. sought in Case Crime No.73 of 2024 (Sections 379, 411, 413, 414, 482 IPC), Police Station Sigra, Varanasi. Applicant, though not named in the FIR, was said to have surfaced through statements of co-accused in connected Case Crime No.41 of 2024 (Sections 411, 467, 468, 471 IPC), from whose possession nine motorcycles were recovered and who disclosed selling motorcycles to the applicant; applicant had already been granted bail in Case Crime No.41 of 2024 and claimed innocence and absence of direct evidence. Held: discretionary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. cannot be put in a straitjacket formula and must be exercised with circumspection on factors such as nature and gravity of accusation, antecedents and conduct; without expressing opinion on merits, no good ground for anticipatory bail was made out and the application was rejected, with liberty to surrender within two weeks and apply for regular bail, and protection from coercive measures for two weeks. (Deepak Verma, J.; Order dated 20.1.2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:9045

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11461 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sanju @ Rishabh Jaisawal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh 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.73 of 2024, under Sections 379, 411, 413, 414, 482 I.P.C., Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Applicant is not named in the FIR. Applicant's name surfaced in Case Crime No.41 of 2024, under sections 411, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. From the statement of coaccused, nine motorcycles recovered from the possession of five accused persons and arrested persons have disclosed that they sold motorcycles to the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant next submits that applicant has been granted bail in Case Crime No.41 of 2024 by trial court. Applicant has no criminal history. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. 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

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has submitted that nine motorcycles have been recovered from the possession of co-accused and they have disclosed that they sold stolen motorcycles to the applicant. Primafacie offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected.

¶10

The object of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any

¶11

other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains.

¶12

It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this Court cannot be put in a straitjacket formula but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from justice, apprehension of tempering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation or society etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society.

¶13

Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and considering the submissions advanced, the nature and gravity of the accusation, I find no good ground for anticipatory bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶14

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant- Sanju @ Rishabh Jaisawal , involved in aforesaid case crime is, hereby, rejected .

¶15

However, if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within two weeks and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law.

¶16

For the period of two weeks form today, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶17

Order Date :- 20.1.2025 SKD

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanju @ Rishabh Jaisawal v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanju @ Rishabh Jaisawal v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Manoj Kesari vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra and 2 Others vs State of U.P.

Suggriv and Another vs State of U.P.

Irshad vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Shah vs State of U.P.

Wasim @ Saeed Afsar vs State of U.P.