Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Faruk vs State Of U.P And Another on 31 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. - 6629 of 2022
Applicant :- Mohd. Faruk
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeet Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Mr. Rohit Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Shri Sanjeet Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
This anticipatory bail application under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case No. 1964 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 464 of 2016, under sections- 419/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC, Police Station Handia, District Prayagraj.
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 FIR. There is an inordinate delay of 25 years in lodging the FIR without any plausible explanation. It is further submitted that the applicant purchased the alleged land on 5.6.1991 from the co-accused Awadhesh through registered sale deed. Further submission is that the co-accused Awadhesh got the property on the basis of family settlement which was done during the life time of his father much before the execution of sale deed in favour of the applicant. To grab the whole property, the first informant falsely implicated the applicant in the case. It is also submitted that during mutation process, the first informant raised an objection but afterwards in revenue record, the name of the applicant was mutated.
The counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the bonafide purchaser. There is dispute between the co-accused Awadhesh and the first informant. The applicant has no concern with the dispute between the co-accused Awadhesh and the first informant. During course of the investigation, the applicant was never arrested. After investigation, charge-sheet against the applicant has been submitted by the investigating officer and the trial court has already taken cognizance. There is no need of custodial interrogation. It is further submitted that till today, no coercive process has been issued against the applicant. Thus, no offence is made out against the applicant. The counsel further submits that presently, the applicant is very old aged about 71 years and he has no previous criminal history. The applicant 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. has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the above facts.
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- Mohd. Faruk involved in the aforesaid case crime 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 him in accordance with law.
In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
Order Date :- 31.8.2022
Shravan
