Allahabad High Court
Rohit Chaudhary vs State Of U.P. And Another on 30 August, 2022
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7237 of 2022
Applicant :- Rohit Chaudhary
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ken Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manish Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Counter affidavit filed by the counsel for the complainant is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as the counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
This anticipatory bail application under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No. 5371 of 2019, under sections- 420, 120-B IPC, Police Station Shahganj, District- Agra.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. It is further submitted that on the basis of joint affidavit, date of marriage was transcribed in the marriage certificate as 4.2.2016. After full awareness, joint affidavit was executed between the parties and marriage was registered. It is further submitted that on false and frivolous grounds, the instant complaint case was filed against the applicant and thereby, the trial court passed summoning order only on the basis of statements of the complainant and witness recorded U/s 200 and 202 CrPC respectively. It is further submitted that no disclosed offence is made out against the applicants.
It is further submitted that apart from family related matter, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is ready to cooperate in the trial and undertakes that if he is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of the same.
Learned A.G.A. as well as the counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant and submitted that the applicant committed cheating. The offence is serious in nature. Thus, the application is liable to be rejected.
It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.
In the instant case, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.
The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
In the event of arrest, the applicant-Rohit Chaudhary involved in the aforesaid complaint case shall be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial 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 co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation;
(2) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and
(3) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(4) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(5) 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.
(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.
(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 his bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.
In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
Order Date :- 30.8.2022
Shravan
