Allahabad High Court
Hariram Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 12 April, 2022
Bench: Ajit Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2827 of 2022
Applicant :- Hariram Singh And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Sharad Shekhar Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Hariram Singh and Anant Jaiswal with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 241 of 2018, under section 420 I.P.C., P.S. Phase-2 Nodia, district-Gautam Budh Nagar.
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.
The report of the incident was lodged by the opposite party no. 3 against five persons, including present applicants, which was registered as Case Crime no. 241 of 2018, under sections 420, 467, 468 and 120B I.P.C., and the role of hatching conspiracy has been assigned to the applicants and after completion of investigation the, the Investigating Officer has submitted chargesheet against the applicants only under section 420 I.P.C.
As per prosecution case the informant had purchased a flat after giving consideration of Rs. 23 lacs to the applicants, who are Directors of Nima Home Pvt., Ltd. On 9.3.2017 the officials of the Noida Development Authority went to the place where the informant was residing, then the informant came to know that the applicants had illegally constructed the flats and sold them, which were seized by the NDA (Noida Development Authority).
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are absolutely innocent and have not committed any offence. The applicants had raised constructions of flats after taking permission from the concerned authority. It is a simple dispute between the informant and the applicants, who are Directors of Nima Home Pvt., Ltd. and the first information report was lodged against them only just to tarnish their images and injure their reputation in the society. Further submission is that the offence is triable by Magistrate and the maximum punishment is below severn years and if the applicants are released on bail, they will co-operate during investigation. The applicants are having definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and antecedent of the applicants, considering the gravity of the offence, considering the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5191 of 2021.
In the event of arrest of the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., if any, befor the competent court/S.H.O. concern on their furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer concerned with the following conditions:-
1. The applicants shall not leave India during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
2. The applicants shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. Their passports will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.
3. That the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
4. The applicants 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 applicants misuses the liberty of bail, the trial 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 applicants 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 them in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 12.4.2022/Faridul.
