Allahabad High Court
Chand Babu And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 5 December, 2022
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11994 of 2022
Applicant :- Chand Babu And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Javed Habib
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Saurabh Kumar
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Javed Habib, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Saurabh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.0064 of 2022, registered under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, 323, 376, 377 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act at Police Station- Mirganj, District Jaunpur with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
After arguing for some time, counsel appearing on behalf of applicant no.1 submits that the present application for anticipatory bail may be dismissed as withdrawn with respect of applicant no.1- Chand Babu with liberty to file a regular bail application which may be decided keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825.
Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the prayer made on behalf of applicant no.1.
In view of the above, considering the aforesaid alternative prayer made by learned counsel for applicant no.1, it is directed that applicant no.1- Chand Babu shall surrender before the concerned court below within one month from today and in case a regular bail application is filed, the same be decided in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra).
For the period of one month from today or till the time of surrender of applicant no.1- Chand Babu before the concerned court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant no.1- Chand Babu, in the above case.
As far as applicant nos.2 and 3 are concerned, they are the father-in-law and sister-in-law of the sister of the informant.
Learned counsel for applicant nos.2 and 3 has stated that they have nothing to do with the said offence. The story, at the outset, seems fake as in the FIR, there are several contradictions in the statement of the victim and the FIR. The case of the applicant nos.2 and 3 is at par with the case of applicant no.1- Chand Babu. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of applicant nos.2 and 3 to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of applicant nos.2 and 3 have also been touched upon at length. Learned counsel for applicant nos.2 and 3 undertakes that they have co-operated in the investigation and are ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for applicant nos.2 and 3.
On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for applicant nos.2 and 3 as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant nos.2 and 3, applicant nos.2 and 3 are liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant nos.2 and 3 shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant nos.2 and 3 is allowed. Let the accused applicant nos.2 and 3- Rahees and Km. Mantasa be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. that the applicant nos.2 and 3 shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
2. that the applicant nos.2 and 3 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 or tamper with the evidence;
3. that the applicant nos.2 and 3 shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
4. that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant nos.2 and 3 shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
5. that the applicant nos.2 and 3 shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
6. that the applicant nos.2 and 3 shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
7. that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
Order Date :- 5.12.2022
Ravi Kant
