Allahabad High Court
Shaurya Pratap Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 April, 2025
Author: Vivek Varma
Bench: Vivek Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:58858
Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1069 of 2025
Applicant :- Shaurya Pratap Singh And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Manisha Chaturvedi,Smt. Chandra Kala Chaturvedi,Vivek Chaturvedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Praveen Kumar Singh,Rupesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned AGA for the State, and perused the material available on record.
2. The instant application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants in Case Crime No. 125 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 333, 324, 110 B.N.S., Police Station Balua, District Chandauli.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the instant case. As per the allegations in the first information report, co-accused Virendra Singh was alleged to have assaulted Smt. Indu Singh and Chandan Singh. In the statement of Smt. Indu Singh, general role of assault has been assigned. The other injured stated that Virendra Singh had assaulted Smt. Indu Singh. As per the medical report, Smt. Indu Singh received a single injury on her head. As per the NCCT head, a fracture of parietal bone was found. The other injured did not receive any visible injury. It is contended that at this stage the author of the injury caused on the head of Smt. Indu Singh is not known. Further, during the course of investigation the applicants were granted benefit of Section 35 B.N.S.S. At this stage there is no credible evidence against the applicants. Investigation has been completed. The applicants had cooperated in the investigation. The applicants have been summoned by the court concerned. Further, 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.
4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
5. 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 provided category/type of offences. One of the categories being Category-A is 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 filing of the charge sheet/cognizance ordinarily 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 terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
6. It is further to be noted that as per Section 35 B.N.S.S. also, during investigation the liberty of an individual is protected in respect of an offence where the maximum punishment provided is upto seven years.
7. It is not the case of the opposite party that the applicants were arrested for the alleged offences during investigation and it is also not the case of the opposite party that the applicants had not co-operated in the investigation. Once no apprehension has been raised with regard to the conduct of the applicants and the applicants have 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.
8. It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would disentitle the applicants for relief of anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern has 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 his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.
9. 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 applicant 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.
10. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the applicants, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicants and the fact that as per the medical report of the five injured, the injuries received by them were found simple in nature, except injury no. 5 of Halim, which was a fracture of ulna bone; said injury was although grievous in nature but not dangerous to life; vague and general allegations have been levelled against the applicants; during the course of investigation, the applicants were granted benefit of Section 41-A Cr.P.C.; at this stage there is no substantive evidence to link the applicants with the offence; the applicants had cooperated in the investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted and the applicants have been summoned by the concerned court, 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), without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
11. In the event of arrest, the applicants- Shaurya Pratap Singh, Prashant Singh and Daroga Singh @ Ranjit Singh, involved in the aforesaid case, 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:-
(i) the applicants shall make themselves available on each date fixed in the matter by the court concerned;
(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;
(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.
12. In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.
13. The application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 21.4.2025
SKT/-
