Allahabad High Court
Prempal vs State Of U.P. on 12 May, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 90
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8976 of 2021
Applicant :- Prempal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Gyan Prakash Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Sri G. P. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. are present through video conferencing.
Exemption application filed by the applicant, seeking exemption from filing the certified copy of the FIR, is hereby allowed.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant-Prempal, with a prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.55 of 2021, under Sections 452, 323, 506, 308 IPC, Police Station-Anoopshahr, District-Bulandshahr, during pendency of trial.
As per FIR version, four accused persons including present applicant barged into the house of first informant in the morning of 31.01.2021 and abused the son of first informant. While he raised alarm, first informant entered the house and he was beaten up as well due to which he sustained head injury.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that present applicant has falsely been implicated in the present matter for some ulterior motive. In the Site Map prepared by the Investigating Officer, the place of occurrence has been shown at the house of one Basant whereas as per FIR version, the place of occurrence is informant's house. It is submitted that the difference in place of occurrence creates doubt with respect to commission of crime as mentioned in the FIR and also shakes the very genesis of crime. It is further submitted that in the medical report, all the injuries have been shown to be simple in nature and so far as head injury is concerned, it has been submitted in para 13 of the affidavit filed in support of this application, the informant Bharat Singh (injured) is a habitual drinker and on 31.01.2021 he unfortunately fell down and sustained injuries. In para 12 of the affidavit, it is said that applicant and informant are neighbourers. It is submitted that, in fact, some quarrel took place between one Atvir Singh and first informant in which present applicant has transposed himself to subside the fracas but bearing enmity in mind, first informant has filed the present FIR and falsely implicated him. In para 16 of the affidavit it is stated that applicant is law abiding citizen and has no criminal history and has never previously convicted. There are no chances of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with prosecution evidence. He undertakes to appear personally on each and every date and also not seek any unnecessary adjournment during trial. In case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse liberty of anticipatory bail. Bar as embodied under Section 438 (6) of Cr.P.C. or in any other law/rules is not attracted in the present matter in granting the anticipatory bail. There is an apprehension of arrest of the applicant in the present matter.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application by contending that from the face of FIR itself culpability of the present applicant is made out and setting him free during investigation would not be appropriate and he can cause damage/harm to the prosecution. Innocence of applicant cannot be adjudicated at pre-trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. Learned A.G.A. has not raised any objection qua criminal history of the present applicant as stated by counsel for the applicant.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record on board and considering the nature of accusation and complicity of accused in totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case at this gage, and also seeing the present surge in the cases of novel coronavirus and possibility of further surge of the pandemic, I find it appropriate to release the present applicant 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.
Accordingly, the present application is allowed. In the event of arrest, the applicant-Prempal involved in the aforesaid case, shall be released on anticipatory bail till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. 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 investigation without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
2. The applicant shall surrender his passports, if any, to the concerned Court/Investigating Officer forthwith. His passports will remain in custody of the concerned Court/Investigating Officer.
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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
4. The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. he shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the Investigating Officer.
5. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek unnecessary 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.
6. 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 and the Government Advocate/informant/complainant can file bail cancellation application.
7. 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 their bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
8. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
9. 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 :- 12.5.2021
Manish Himwan
