Rahul Katiyar And 3 Others vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 19286 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 72
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11116 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Rahul Katiyar And 3 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Uma Nath Pandey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Babu Lal Ram
 

 
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

Learned counsel for first informant has submitted that Smt. Ekta Katiyar, who is first informant of this case has not been arrayed as opposite parties. In pursuance of order dated 27.7.2021 Rs. 25,000/- was directed to be deposited by the applicants before the Mediation Centre and the same was payable to opposite party no. 2 Smt. Ekta Katiyar. Due to non-joinder of opposite party no. 2 she could not get the aforesaid money.

In view of the above, learned counsel for applicants are directed to implead Smt. Ekta Katiyar as opposite party no. 2 in the array of parties during the course of the day.

In pursuance of order dated 27.2.2021, Rs.25,000/- shall be paid to opposite party no. 2 forthwith.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the material available on record.

The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail as the accused-applicant are apprehending their arrest in connection with Case Crime No.1072 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 & 377 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar.

Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case.

Since it is a matrimonial dispute, as such, effort should be made to restore the matrimonial tie.

It is further submitted that interim protection was granted by this Court vide order dated 27.7.2021. Mediation between the parties has been failed, and the charge sheet has been filed against the applicant without collecting credible and cogent evidence. During investigation, the applicants fully cooperated, therefore no need of custodial interrogation of the applicants, hence, the applicants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial and they are ready to cooperate with the trial. If the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they will never misuse the same. 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. 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, 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 (Rahul Katiyar, Tega Bahadur Katiyar, Smt. Leelawati and Indresh Katiyar), be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number by the trial Court till 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 applicants shall not leave India during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

(ii) 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.

(iii) 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;

(iv) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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;

(v) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. The applicants shall cooperate in the investigation;

(vi) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code; and

(vi) 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.

(vii) The applicants are directed to immediately participate in the trial otherwise, benefit of this order shall not be made available to them.

Order Date :- 1.12.2022

Virendra