Dinesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19639

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2766 of 2024 Applicant :- Dinesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Utkarsh Misra,Abhishek Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

¶6

As per office report, opposite party no.2-complainant, notice could not be served upon.

¶7

This first anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.146 of 2023 under Section 394 IPC, Police Station Mandhatta, District Pratapgarh.

¶8

As per contents of First Information Report, the incident is said to have taken place on 21.07.2023 at about 11:45 when three unidentified persons are said to have accosted the informant and looted jewellery and other valuables from the informant.

¶9

On 31.01.2025, the following order had been passed:-

¶10

"Rejoinder affidavit filed today by the counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶11

Heard Sri Abhishek, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State.

¶12

Issue notice to the opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date.

¶13

Steps be taken within a week.

¶14

Office is directed to proceed accordingly.

¶15

In compliance of the earlier order, Sri Laakhan Singh Bhadauriya, Investigating Officer is present along with case diary.

¶16

I.O. has informed that the investigation is going on but the present applicant is not cooperating and NBW has been issued against him.

¶17

The present applicant is apprehending his arrest in case crime no. 146 of 2023, under Section 394 of IPC, P.S. Mandhata District Pratapgarh.

¶18

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as he has not committed any offence. The applicant is not named in the FIR and has been implicated on the basis of statement of the co-accused who have been arrested. Such confessional statement which is extra judicial confession is not admissible in the evidence.

¶19

Attention has been drawn towards rejoinder affidavit 1, which is an anticipatory bail order being granted in favour of the applicant on 20.03.2024 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 2936 of 2024. The present case is similar to the aforesaid case. The present applicant is willing to cooperate in the investigation and he is having his permanent address, therefore, there is no flight risk. Considering the aforesaid submission, his liberty may be protected in view of the dictum of Apex Court rendered in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

¶20

Learned AGA has stated that counter affidavit has been filed but the same is not traceable on the record, therefore, office is directed to place the counter affidavit on record on the next date.

¶21

Let the counter affidavit be filed by the opposite party no. 2, within a period of four weks.

¶22

List in the week commencing 03.03.2025, within top ten cases.

¶23

Therefore, in the meantime, it is directed that in the event of arrest the applicant (Dinesh) shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number, till completion of investigation or filing of the police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., on his furnishing a personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority/ court concerned and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each with the following conditions:-

¶24

(i) The present applicant shall appear before the investigating officer on 05.02.2025 at 11:00 AM.

¶25

(ii) That the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required;

¶26

(iii) that 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 or tamper with the evidence; (iv) that the applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the court;

¶27

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence during trial;

¶28

(vi) that the applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer/ Trial Court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶29

(vi) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

¶30

(vii) that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the learned counsel for the State shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶31

The officer who is present in person, need not appear again. "

¶32

In pursuance thereof, learned AGA has been provided instructions to the effect that subsequently applicant cooperated in the investigation whereafter charge-sheet against him under Section 394. It is submitted that charge-sheet against applicant has been filed on the basis of confessional statement of coaccused Vikash Kumar Saroj.

¶33

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and specifically the fact that there has been no recovery from the applicant and his name has been introduced only on the basis of alleged confessional statement of co-accused and particularly since applicant has subsequently participate and co-operated in investigation, the interim anticipatory bail granted vide order dated 31.01.2025 is hereby made absolute subject to following conditions.

¶34

In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Dinesh till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:-

¶35

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

¶36

(ii) that 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;

¶37

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶38

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶39

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶40

In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

¶41

Order Date :- 8.4.2025/Satish

¶42

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dinesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Sharif @ Guddu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Salma Bano Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

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

Dinesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dr. Anup Kumar Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Education, Lucknow and Others

Dr. Avinash Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Education, Lucknow and Others