Surendra Prasad and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51886

Court No. - 69

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 741 of 2025

Applicant :- Surendra Prasad And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hira Lal, Jay Prakash Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The present application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants in Case Crime No.65 of 2023, under sections 354-Kha, 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C., P.S. Phoolpur, District Varanasi.

¶8

Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. Earlier on 14.4.2021 the nephew of the applicant no.1 lodged a first information report against the brother of the informant registered as Case Crime No. 0132 of 2021, under Sections 452, 504, 323 I.P.C., P.S. Phoolpur, District Gomti (Commissionerate Varanasi). In counter blast to the said proceedings the instant prosecution has been instituted. The applicant no.1 did not act indecently with the informant/victim. In the alleged incident no person has received injury. No medical report is available on the case diary. Investigation has been completed. The applicants had cooperated in the investigation. No custodial interrogation is required. The applicants have been summoned by the concerned court. Counsel for applicants further contends that the maximum sentence provided for the alleged offences is upto seven years. He submits that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773 , the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest in the above mentioned case. In case, the applicants are released on anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. for the State could not dispute the fact that the offences against the applicants are punishable upto seven years. He does not dispute the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra). He has not placed any criminal antecedents of the applicants.

¶10

The Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) has laid down the guidelines with regard to enlargement of an accused on bail. The guidelines

¶11

provided category/type of offences. One of the category being Category-A are offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less. The Supreme Court in paragraph-3 of the aforesaid judgment has laid down the guidelines that after the filing of the charge sheet/cognizance ordinary the summons are required to be issued permitting the appearance of the accused through Lawyer and the bail applications of the accused persons on appearance are to be decided without the accused being taken into custody or by granting interim bail. A perusal of the aforesaid guidelines would demonstrate that the liberty of an individual has been recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in term of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶12

It is further to be noted that as per Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also during investigation the liberty of an individual is protected in respect of an offence where the maximum punishment provided is upto seven years.

¶13

It is not the case of the opposite party that applicant was arrested for the alleged offences during investigation and it is also not the case of the opposite party that the applicant had not co-operated in the investigation. Once no apprehension has been raised with regard to the conduct of the applicant and the applicant has been charge-sheeted and summoned in respect of offence in which punishment provided is upto seven years, then in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) , the liberty of the individual is required to be protected.

¶14

It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would dis-entitle the applicants for relief of anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that their mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use their liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicants fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶16

Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the applicants, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicants and the fact that earlier the nephew of the applicant no.1 lodged a first information report against the brother of the informant, the fact that in the alleged incident no person has received injury and no medical report is available on the case diary, the fact that the offences against the applicants are punishable up to seven years and adhering to the guidelines provided in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) , investigation has been completed, the applicants had cooperated in the investigation and no custodial interrogation is required, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged

¶17

on anticipatory bail.

¶18

In the event of arrest, the applicants Surendra Prasad and Vipat Patel @ Ramesh Patel be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶19

(i) the applicants shall make themselves available on each date fixed in the matter by the court concerned;

¶20

(ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court;

¶21

(iii) the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport the same shall be deposited by them before the concerned court.

¶22

In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

¶23

The application stands disposed of.

¶24

Order Date :- 9.4.2025 S.S.

¶25

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

Surendra Prasad and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Prasad and Another v. State of U.P. 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

Uma Shankar Shukla vs State of U.P. and Another

Mehndi Hasan vs State of U.P.

Ritu Divedi vs State of U.P.

Smt. Akbari Begum vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Asif vs State of U.P.

Harsh Singh Alias Billa vs State of U.P.