Dismissed¶14

Sudhir Kumar Singh @ Suddu v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2025NABAIL/2026/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail rejected; Section 482 BNSS; parity with co-accused denied owing to different role; Case Crime No. 451 of 2024; BNS Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 61(2)(a), 352, 351(3), 333; Arms Act Section 3/25; P.S. Badlapur, District Jaunpur; kidnapping and death of informant's son; 18 grievous injuries; NBW issued; non-cooperation in investigation; five cases of criminal history; previous enmity with informant; co-accused Monu Singh @ Baba @ Shubham and Fakkar Singh @ Rajesh Singh granted bail 28.02.2025 and 10.03.2025; Deepak Verma J.; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; 2025:AHC:39709; order date 19.3.2025.

What did the court decide?

Parity with the co-accused who were granted anticipatory bail is denied because the role of the applicant is different from the role of the co-accused. ¶13

Sudhir Kumar Singh @ Suddu Vs State of U.P… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant Sudhir Kumar Singh @ Suddu in Case Crime No. 451 of 2024 under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 61(2)(a), 352, 351(3), 333 of BNS and Section 3/25 of Arms Act, Police Station Badlapur, District Jaunpur. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

No good ground is found for anticipatory bail to the applicant — considering the 18 grievous injuries sustained by the deceased, the NBW issued against the applicant, his non-cooperation in investigation proceedings, his differing role from the co-accused, and previous enmity with the informant — and the anticipatory bail application is rejected.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Parity with the co-accused who were granted anticipatory bail is denied because the role of the applicant is different from the role of the co-accused.

¶13

Key takeaways

The discretionary power of grant or refusal of anticipatory bail cannot be put in a straitjacket formula and must be exercised carefully with circumspection, evaluating factors such as nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed, conduct, criminal antecedents, possibility of fleeing from justice, apprehension of tampering with witnesses or threat to the complainant, and impact on investigation or society.obiter¶12
The object of anticipatory bail is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated to satisfy the personal vendetta or grudge of the complainant or any other person operating directly or from behind the curtains.obiter¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Deepak Verma, J.), by order dated 19.3.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:39709), rejected the anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS of Sudhir Kumar Singh @ Suddu in Case Crime No. 451 of 2024 (Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 61(2)(a), 352, 351(3), 333 of BNS and Section 3/25 of Arms Act, Police Station Badlapur, District Jaunpur), in which the applicant and named accused are alleged to have kidnapped and fatally assaulted the informant's son. Parity with co-accused Monu Singh @ Baba @ Shubham and Fakkar Singh @ Rajesh Singh (granted anticipatory bail on 28.02.2025 and 10.03.2025) was expressly denied because the applicant's role differed from theirs. Rejection was further supported by 18 grievous injuries on the deceased, issuance of an NBW against the applicant, his non-cooperation with investigation, five prior cases of criminal history, and previous enmity with the informant.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39709

¶2

Court No. - 67

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2026 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Singh @ Suddu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Rai,Shambhavi Nandan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Shambhavi Nandan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Harsh Mishra and Sri Anurag Dubey, learned counsel for the informant, 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 Case Crime No. 451 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 61(2) (a), 352, 351(3), 333 of BNS and Section 3/25 of Arms Act, Police Station- Badlapur, District- Jaunpur, till conclusion of trial.

¶8

Allegation against the applicant is that applicant and named accused persons kidnapped the informant's son and they physically tortured, as a result thereof, informant's son died. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Initially he claimed for parity with co-accused, namely, Monu Singh @ Baba @ Shubham and Fakkar Singh @ Rajesh Singh, who have been granted anticipatory bail by co-ordinate Bench vide orders dated 28.02.2025 and 10.03.2025 respectively as applicant's case is similar to the co-accused. Applicant has five cases of criminal history, the same has been explained in bail application. In para 24 of bail application it is submitted that applicant is Head Master at Primary School, Nevada, Mukhlishpur, Jaunpur. Allegation in FIR is false and baseless. Investigation is pending. No charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant. 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

Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and has submitted that applicant is a criminal minded person and on his persuasion, various persons assaulted the informant's son. Applicant has previously convicted in other cases and on release on bail he

¶10

committed offence in instant case and NBW has been issued and he is not co-operating in investigation. On perusal of injury report, 18 injuries have been found over the body of the deceased. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

Considering the argument advanced by counsel for both the parties, it is evident from record that deceased has sustained 18 grievous injuries all over the body, due to which he died, moreover, NBW has been issued against the applicant and he is not co-operating in investigation proceedings and role of the applicant is different from the role of co-accused, who have been granted anticipatory bail, as such, parity with co-accused is denied. Moreover, applicant having previous enmity with the informant. I find no good ground for anticipatory bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case. No interference is warranted.

¶14

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of applicant- Sudhir Kumar Singh @ Suddu , is hereby rejected .

¶15

Order Date :- 19.3.2025 Nitin Verma

¶16

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

Sudhir Kumar Singh @ Suddu v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Kumar Singh @ Suddu v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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