High Court · 2025

1. Heard Shri Desh Deepak Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Arun Kumar Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Nikhil Dixit, learned counsel, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant/ informant, the same is taken on record.

2. This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the present applicant (Rajesh Kumar Singh) apprehending his arrest in FIR No.0351 of 2024, under Section 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station-Aliganj, District-Lucknow.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.).

4.Attention has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. wherein the allegation has been levelled against six accused persons including the present applicant. As per the allegation, on the request of the victim (since deceased) the present applicant had given a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- to one Ranjeet Singh and when the present applicant demanded his money, the co-accused Ranjeet Singh absconded. Then the present applicant compelled the victim (since deceased) to get his money returned and when such money could not be returned, the present applicant along with his son had beaten the victim, therefore, he committed suicide. One suicide note was found at the place of suicide wherein the deceased narrated the story and levelled allegation against all the six accused persons.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that if the prosecution story so narrated in the FIR is considered on its face value, then the present applicant might have not assaulted the deceased for the reason that only the deceased could manage to get his amount back from the co-accused Ranjeet Singh. Besides, there is no overt or positive act on the part of the present applicant to instigate or abet the victim to commit suicide and there is no proximity of the act of the present applicant with the consequential act being done by the deceased, therefore, the ingredients of Section 108 B.N.S. are not attracted. The aforesaid fact may be tested during the course of trial.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the present applicant is having his permanent address, therefore, there is no flight risk. Investigation is going on. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. He has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that, if his liberty is protected, he shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail and shall co-operate in the investigation, therefore, his liberty may be protected in the light of the dictum of Apex Court rendered in the case in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

7. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the complainant/ informant, Sri Nikhil Dixit, have opposed the aforesaid request of learned counsel for the applicant, but they could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the applicant.

8. Learned counsel for the complainant/ informant has stated that in the suicide note the allegation has been levelled against the present applicant, therefore, his anticipatory bail application may be rejected.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, since on account of death/ suicide of the victim the present applicant may also be an affected person as his money amounting to Rs.1,80,000/- has not been returned to him, he is having his permanent address, therefore, there is no flight risk, the present applicant is having no prior criminal history; the undertaking that he shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail and shall co-operate in the investigation properly, I find it appropriate that liberty of the present applicant may be protected till completion of investigation and filing of the police report in view of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

10. Therefore, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant (Rajesh Kumar Singh) shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number till completion of investigation and filing of the police report on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority/ court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 01.02.2025, at 11:00 a.m. sharp and shall further appear before the Investigating Officer as and when he is called to cooperate in the investigation, till completion of the investigation and filing of the police report, failing which, this interim protection may be withdrawn on the application being filed by the learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the complainant/ informant. (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 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 prior permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence during trial; (v) that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant / informant shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

11. In view of the aforesaid terms, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of finally. [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Order Date :- 29.1.2025 Suresh/ SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Desh Deepak Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Arun Kumar Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Nikhil Dixit, learned counsel, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant/ informant, the same is taken on record.

2. This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the present applicant (Rajesh Kumar Singh) apprehending his arrest in FIR No.0351 of 2024, under Section 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station-Aliganj, District-Lucknow.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.).

4.Attention has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. wherein the allegation has been levelled against six accused persons including the present applicant. As per the allegation, on the request of the victim (since deceased) the present applicant had given a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- to one Ranjeet Singh and when the present applicant demanded his money, the co-accused Ranjeet Singh absconded. Then the present applicant compelled the victim (since deceased) to get his money returned and when such money could not be returned, the present applicant along with his son had beaten the victim, therefore, he committed suicide. One suicide note was found at the place of suicide wherein the deceased narrated the story and levelled allegation against all the six accused persons.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that if the prosecution story so narrated in the FIR is considered on its face value, then the present applicant might have not assaulted the deceased for the reason that only the deceased could manage to get his amount back from the co-accused Ranjeet Singh. Besides, there is no overt or positive act on the part of the present applicant to instigate or abet the victim to commit suicide and there is no proximity of the act of the present applicant with the consequential act being done by the deceased, therefore, the ingredients of Section 108 B.N.S. are not attracted. The aforesaid fact may be tested during the course of trial.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the present applicant is having his permanent address, therefore, there is no flight risk. Investigation is going on. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. He has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that, if his liberty is protected, he shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail and shall co-operate in the investigation, therefore, his liberty may be protected in the light of the dictum of Apex Court rendered in the case in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

7. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the complainant/ informant, Sri Nikhil Dixit, have opposed the aforesaid request of learned counsel for the applicant, but they could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the applicant.

8. Learned counsel for the complainant/ informant has stated that in the suicide note the allegation has been levelled against the present applicant, therefore, his anticipatory bail application may be rejected.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, since on account of death/ suicide of the victim the present applicant may also be an affected person as his money amounting to Rs.1,80,000/- has not been returned to him, he is having his permanent address, therefore, there is no flight risk, the present applicant is having no prior criminal history; the undertaking that he shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail and shall co-operate in the investigation properly, I find it appropriate that liberty of the present applicant may be protected till completion of investigation and filing of the police report in view of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

10. Therefore, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant (Rajesh Kumar Singh) shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number till completion of investigation and filing of the police report on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority/ court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 01.02.2025, at 11:00 a.m. sharp and shall further appear before the Investigating Officer as and when he is called to cooperate in the investigation, till completion of the investigation and filing of the police report, failing which, this interim protection may be withdrawn on the application being filed by the learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the complainant/ informant. (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 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 prior permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence during trial; (v) that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant / informant shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

11. In view of the aforesaid terms, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of finally. [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Order Date :- 29.1.2025 Suresh/ SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench