Allahabad High Court
Smt. Deepika Sabbarwal And ... vs State Of U.P. on 22 February, 2021
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9842 of 2020
Applicant :- Smt. Deepika Sabbarwal And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dhananjay Singh,Vimalendra Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhinav Prasad
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ajay Kr. Pathak, learned AGA for the State and Sri Anurag Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned counsel for the informant and perused the material placed on record.
This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 265 of 2020, under Sections 420, 389, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Nazirabad, District Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of investigation.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is next submitted that informant is an Advocate and in fact, he himself assaulted the applicants for which they have approached the police, but FIR could not be lodged. After intervention of I.G., Kanpur Nagar, FIR has been lodged. The allegation levelled against the applicants are false and frivolous. Applicant no.1 is 72% physically disabled. The applicants have been falsely implicated and have no criminal history. If they are released on bail, they would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the anticipatory bail rejection order.
Sri Anurag Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that in the said FIR, final report has been submitted. He next submitted that there is dispute between applicant no.2 and his brother and applicant is being tortured only for the reason that he is counsel of brother of applicant no.2, but he could dispute this fact that applicant is 72% is physically disabled and they have no criminal history.
Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants Smt. Deepika Sabbarwal & Gautam Sabbarwal involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
2. The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
3. 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 his from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
4. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.
5. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
6. The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.
7. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
8. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing
Order Date :- 22.2.2021
Junaid
