Allahabad High Court
Mahipal Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 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. - 5957 of 2022
Applicant :- Mahipal Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Prateek Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard 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 Criminal Case No. 23/2004 arising out of Case Crime No. 289 of 2003, under sections- 5(a), 6(1)(b) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, Police Station Medical, District Meerut.
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. It is further submitted that earlier the FIR against the applicant was lodged U/s 3/7 Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act in the year 2003 in which the applicant has got bail. Thereafter, the applicant has regularly appeared before the trial court and he never tried to avoid the trial. Till today, neither the charge was framed nor all the accused appeared before the court. It is further submitted that after filing of the charge-sheet against the applicant, learned trial court passed the cognizance and summoning order. During pendency of this case, the bailable warrant was issued against the applicant and the applicant moved application for recall of the said bailable warrant on 2.3.2005. Presently, the file is still pending for appearance of other co-accused, on 11.3.2022 on the basis of information furnished by the criminal court clerk that apart from above section, charge-sheet is also filed U/s 5(a), 6(1)(b) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and the applicant has not got bail in added sections, therefore, the learned Magistrate directed to the applicant to get bail in added sections. Thereafter, the applicant moved anticipatory bail application before the sessions court, but the same was rejected by the sessions court in a routine and mechanical manner.
The counsel for the applicant further submits that at the time of consideration of regular bail, every fact was considered and the applicant has got regular bail in the year 2003. Since the anticipatory bail in added sections was rejected by the sessions court, so there is apprehension of arrest of the applicant in added sections and he seeks anticipatory bail. It is also submitted that this is unnecessarily lingering on since 2013. So, in the interest of justice, after separating from the other absconder co-accused, trial of the applicant be concluded in time-bound. 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- Mahipal Singh 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 :- 5.8.2022
Shravan
