Sunil Kumar vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 10267 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 74
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 19714 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Sunil Kumar
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- D.K.Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anand Kumar Singh,Dileep Kumar Pandey,Manish Kumar Pathak,Niraj Kumar Chaturvedi,Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
 

 
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

Heard Mr. D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Nitin Kesarwani, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for first informant.

The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail as the accused-applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Case Crime No.0175 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506, 427, 324 IPC, Police Station Gyanpur, District Bhadohi.

Earlier the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 25.02.2022 passed by another coordinate Bench of this Court.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further submission is that there is a cross version of the present matter. Civil suit is pending between the parties. It is not clear as to who was aggressor. Further submission is that there is contradiction on point of weapon assigned to the applicant in the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC.

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for first informant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant and have submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, he is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant is also named in the impugned FIR and as per version of the FIR, there is a clear cut allegation against the applicant, hence, the present anticipatory bail application is liable to be rejected.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and from the perusal of material on record and also taking into consideration the gravity of accusation and there being possibility of their fleeing from justice, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant is refused, consequently, the present anticipatory bail application is rejected.

However, it is provided that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the trial court and seeks grant of regular bail, his application would be decided on its own merit and without being influenced by the rejection of the present anticipatory bail application in view of the judgment in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.

Order Date :- 16.8.2022

Ajeet