Dismissed¶12

Ram Mukut Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2025NABAIL/1504/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, order dated 7.3.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:33476), Deepak Verma, J.; Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 1504 of 2025; Ram Mukut Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another; anticipatory bail refused in Complaint Case No. 771 of 2014 under Section 380 IPC, P.S. M.M. Gate, District Agra; summoning order earlier challenged through 482 Application No. 379 of 2019, dismissed for want of prosecution on 29.08.2023; counsel: Balbeer Singh for applicant, G.A. for the State.

What did the court decide?

Without expressing any opinion on merits, and considering the submissions advanced and the nature and gravity of the accusation, the Court found no good ground for anticipatory bail to the applicant and warranted no interference; the application was rejected. ¶12

Ram Mukut Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33476

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1504 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Mukut Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Balbeer Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Balbeer Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Complaint Case No.771 of 2014, under Section 380 IPC, Police Station-M. M. Gate, District-Agra, till conclusion of trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Instant complaint was registered in the year 2014 and summon was issued against the applicant, thereafter, applicant challenged the summoning order before this Hon'ble Court by filing 482 application bearing No.379 of 2019, the Hon'ble Court passed interim order in favour of the applicant, thereafter, on next date of listing, the 482 application was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 29.08.2023. Applicant's counsel further submitted that it is a civil nature dispute and no offence under the alleged section is made out. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that from record it is apparent that applicant had knowledge regarding summoning order issued against the applicant and after dismissal of 482 application, applicant did not move any application in regard to anticipatory bail or regular bail before the court below. Applicant despite knowledge that court proceedings is pending and applicant has to face trial, has deliberately did not appear before the court concerned and has filed the present anticipatory bail. Applicant is playing tactics for delaying in trial proceedings. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected.

¶10

The object of Anticipatory bail is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains.

¶11

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.

¶12

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. No interference is warranted.

¶13

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of applicant-Ram Mukut Sharma, is hereby rejected .

¶14

Order Date :- 7.3.2025 Nitin Verma

¶15

Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Mukut Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Mukut Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases