Sachin vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 9281 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Sachin vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 August, 2025

Author: Krishan Pahal

Bench: Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:151644
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 4493 of 2025
 
Court No. - 65
 
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Mohd. Akbar Shah Alam Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.433 of 2022, registered under Section (added) 307 IPC at Police Station- Simbhawali, District Hapur with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that in the instant case the applicant was enlarged on bail by this Court under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 325, 504, 506, 308 IPC, Police station-Simbhawali, District-Hapur vide order dated 05.08.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.27689 of 2024 and following order was passed :-

" 1. Heard Sri Mohd. Akbar Shah Alam Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 433 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 325, 504, 506, 308 of I.P.C., Police Station - Simbhawali, District - Hapur, during the pendency of trial.

PROSECUTION STORY:

3. The applicant along with other named co-accused persons is stated to have assaulted the father of the informant on 24.11.2022 at about 09:30 PM causing grievous injuries to him. After the raising of alarm, the other persons of the locality are stated to have reached there, as such, the applicant and other co-accused persons had run away from the scene of occurrence.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

4. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR.

5. The FIR is delayed by about three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. There are general allegations against all the accused persons except Mahesh, who has assigned the role of carrying spade (balkati). The injuries sustained by the injured person are two in number of which one was found grievous in nature.

7. It is further stated that no specific allegations have been made against any of the accused persons, as such, it cannot be ascertained as to who has caused the said injuries as all the accused persons had carried lathi-danda except Mahesh.

8. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

9. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.06.2024, having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE:

10. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

CONCLUSION:

11. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

12. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. 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.

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

14. Let the applicant- Sachin, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

15. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

16. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses."

5. Later on during investigation, Section 307 IPC has been added and the applicant has been summoned by the court concerned. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant has not misused the said liberty granted to him earlier on. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed much reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court passed in case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat & Another, 2016 (1) SCC (Cri) 240 and Manoj Suresh Jadhav & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3428, wherein the applicant therein was enlarged on anticipatory bail in the added sections U/S 438 Cr.P.C. after being enlarged on regular bail U/S 439 Cr.P.C.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

8. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and the aforesaid case law produced by learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Sachin be released in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i). that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii). that the applicant 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

10. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

August 28, 2025

Sumit S