Jagapatiya and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10448

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 222 of 2025

Applicant :- Jagapatiya And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Shukla,Vivek Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Gaurav Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

In view of the proposed order notice to opposite party no. 2 is dispensed with.

¶8

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No. 0491 of 2017 u/s 147, 504, 306 IPC, P.S. Baundi, District Bahraich. It has been submitted that the present applicants have falsely been implicated as they have not committed any offence as alleged.

¶9

As a matter of fact the deceased was a mental patient and has committed suicide for no cogent reasons. The applicant no. 1 is the mother of the deceased, applicant no. 2 is elder brother of the deceased, applicant no. 3 is uncle of the deceased and applicant no. 4 is relative of the deceased.

¶10

Attention has been drawn towards the Annexure no. 5 which is an order dated 1.4.2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Misc. Bench No. 8876 of 2019 (Malhu Urf Ram Sewak & Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors.) granting interim order to the applicants till the next date of listing. While passing the interim order dated 1.4.2019 this Court perused one notary affidavit of the informant, wife of the deceased dated 14.2.2019, which has been enclosed with this application as Annexure no. 4. In such notarized affidavit the informant has herself stated that she does not want any legal action against the accused persons inasmuch as she was not aware about the allegations as the complaint was written by someone else and the informant had put her thumb impression on such complaint.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the aforesaid matter may be settled outside the Court inasmuch as the allegation against the present applicants are false and misconceived and the informant is willing to settle the dispute.

¶12

Besides, there is no material or evidence with the prosecution in respect of the overt act of the present applicants instigating the deceased to commit suicide, therefore, the ingredients of section 306 IPC are missing in the present case. The present applicants are having their permanent address, therefore, there is no flight risk. The applicants undertake that they shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail, if granted, therefore, in the light of the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC online SC 98 their liberty may be protected.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the aforesaid request but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶14

Having considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, since the informant had filed one notary affidavit in which the informant has herself stated that she does not want any legal action against the accused persons inasmuch as she was not aware about the allegations as such complaint was written by someone else and the informant had put her thumb impression on such complaint, instant matter may be settled outside the Court inasmuch as the allegation against the present applicants are false and misconceived and the informant is willing to settle the dispute, there is no material or evidence with the prosecution in respect of the overt act of the present applicants instigating the deceased to commit suicide, therefore, the ingredients of section 306 IPC are missing in the present case, the present applicants are having their permanent address, therefore, there is no flight risk and considering the undertaking of the applicants that they shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail, I find it appropriate that liberty of the present applicants may be protected till conclusion of trial in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Sushila Aggarwal (supra) .

¶15

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶16

it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicants- Jagpatiya, Ram Sewak @ Malhu, Kanhaiyalal, and Hareram , shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority/ court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶17

I. the present applicants shall appear before the court concerned within 15 days from today or the date fixed whichever is earlier to cooperate in the trial proceedings and they shall not misuse the liberty of bail, failing

¶18

which this protection may be withdrawn.

¶19

II. that the applicants 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;

¶20

III. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶21

IV. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶22

V. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted.

¶23

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.]

¶24

Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Om

¶25

Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jagapatiya and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagapatiya and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dharmendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others

Smt. Afsari Khatoon Alias Gudia Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko.

Dharmendra Kumar Mishra @ Babban Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Anupam Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Munesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Shashi Bala Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko.