Allahabad High Court
Shanti Devi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 August, 2022
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6732 of 2022
Applicant :- Shanti Devi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail as the accused-applicant is apprehending his arrest during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 573 of 2020, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity. It is further submitted that earlier applicant had approached this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9038 of 2020 in which the applicant and other accused have already granted protection till filing of the charge-sheet. Further submitted that the investigating officer without collecting the cogent and credible evidence filed the charge-sheet against the applicant under section 306 I.P.C.. Further submission is that applicant has no previous criminal history. It is also submitted that applicant is elder sister-in-law (Badi Sali). It is further submitted that co-accused Radha Thapa has already been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 04.08.2022 by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 6771 of 2022 till conclusion of the trial. Further submission is that the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant, hence, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director, AIR 2021 Supreme Court 4154.
Learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail to the applicant and has submitted that earlier the applicant has got relief in writ petition and during course of investigation charge sheet has been submitted under Section 306 IPC. The offence is serious in nature. Thus, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.
I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aman Preet Singh (Supra), the Court has observed as under:
"10. Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170 Cr.P.C., the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail.
11. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."
In Aman Preet Singh (supra), the Court has clearly held that if a person, who is an accused in a non-bailable/cognizable offence, was not taken into custody during the period of investigation, in such a case, it is appropriate that he may be released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, particularly seeing the fact that earlier the applicant has been granted protection till filing of the charge-sheet in writ petition by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and also seeing the fact that the applicant has not misused the liberty and applicant has fully cooperated and participated in the investigation, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicant- Shanti Devi be enlarged on anticipatory bail in above case crime number till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and, two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) the applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when 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;
(ii) the applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation;
(iii) in case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code; and
(iv) 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.
With the aforesaid observation/direction, this anticipatory bail application is allowed.
Order Date :- 17.8.2022
Bhanu
