Jai Prakash Jaiswal vs State Of U.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 3430 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 73
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7881 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Jai Prakash Jaiswal
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Verma,Chandra Dutt
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Jai Prakash Jaiswal, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. C-19 of 2003, under Section- 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Jaunpur, during pendency of trial.

Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

An F.I.R was lodged by one Savitri Devi, alleging that the applicant and other co-accused persons, namely, Satya Prakash Jaiswal, Jiya Lal, Sahab Lal and other persons are involved in this case. She alleged that the applicant is son of the brother of her father-in-law. She had two sons and one of them namely, Om Prakash, was married to Saroj Devi, of Kolkata. When her husband, Banke Lal, died, she informed her son and his daughter-in-law, Saroj Devi. Saroj Devi came with her children and stayed at the house of the applicant. Her son did not came. She asked Saroj Devi why her son has not come when his father had died but she did not gave any definite reply. Saroj Devi did not have cordial relationship with her family and she is living as concubine of the applicant. The applicant used to visit her at Kolkata. The applicant and other accused want to grab her property. She has got a will executed regarding House No. 54 from her husband on 09.09.2002. The applicant has no concern with the house but co-accused persons have got a fake will dated 02.10.2002 prepared. Their intention is to grab the property. She has given applications to the police but no action has been taken. Hence, she made application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and in pursuance of the order passed thereon, F.I.R was registered.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is the nephew of the husband of the informant. The informant wanted to grab a share of the applicant in the joint family property and therefore, she lodged the F.I.R against the applicant. The applicant obtained bail during the trial from the court below but it appears that the records in the record room has been misplaced. After the death of the informant Savitri Devi, her counsel moved an application on 26.11.2020 stating that the applicant has not obtained bail. The applicant got the records searched through his counsel but could not find the same. Thereafter, he moved an anticipatory bail application no. 56 of 2021 before the Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, which has been rejected. During the trial, number of witnesses have died.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has always cooperated with the trial and no non-bailable warrant was issued against him. He has relied upon the anticipatory bail application moved before the court below wherein such averments have been made. However, from the order of the court below also, there does not appears to be any finding of absconding of the applicant from the trial recorded in the anticipatory bail rejection order. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, he is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

After hearing the rival submissions, it appears that the applicant has been implicated on account of dispute between very close relatives regarding joint family property. The applicant has not committed any offence against public. The dispute between parties is purely civil in nature.

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 applicant 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 her 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 him 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 :- 15.3.2021

KS