Montu Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:1797

Court No. - 35

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12410 of 2024

Applicant :- Montu Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Giri Ram Rawat, Sangeeta Yadav,Shri Ram (Rawat) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under Section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.0113 of 2023, under Sections 364, 343, 323 IPC, Police Station Khairgarh, District Firozabad.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. As per version of the impugned FIR, there are three accused persons. During investigation, the name of two co-accused persons, namely, Rohit and Bhulla have been deleted and charge sheet sheet has been submitted only against Sanju @ Sanjay and Ravi whereas the investigation against the applicant is going on. He further submits that similarly placed coaccused, namely, Rajesh Kumar and Vijay Pal @ Kaaka, who are also not named in the FIR,have been granted anticipatory bail by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Nos.8049 and 8038 of 2023, copy of bail orders have been annexed as Annexure Nos.6 and 7 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. He further submits that since the similarly placed co accused who are also not named in the FIR has been grated anticipatory bail, the applicant who is also not named in the FIR, is also entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is having no previous criminal history.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶10

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98 . The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶11

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Montu Kumar, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.

¶13

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

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶16

(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶17

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98 .

¶18

(vii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶19

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at

¶20

liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶21

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.

¶22

Order Date :- 6.1.2025

¶23

Ajeet/Afaq

¶24

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Montu Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Montu Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishan Pyari vs State of U.P. and Another

Chanda Devi vs State of U.P. and Another

Girishchandra Pandey vs State of U.P. and Another

Shailendra Kumar Agarwal vs State of Up and Another

Noor Saba vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Girishchandra Pandey vs State of U.P. and Another