Allahabad High Court
Munna Dealer vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 December, 2022
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13145 of 2022
Applicant :- Munna Dealer
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mrityunjay Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail as the accused-applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Case Crime No. 34 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 336, 427, 332, 353 & 436 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District Aligarh.
It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further submission is that the allegation against the applicant is that he made a protest against CAA & NRC and the applicant and other co-accused persons had pelted stone over Nav Durga Mandir Pathwari by which the peace and harmony of the society was disrupted. It is further submitted that the applicant is 65 years old and is suffering from old age disease. The has no concern with the alleged offence. In the said offence 39 named and 103 unknown persons were made accused. The general allegation of protest and disruption of peace and harmony has been levelled against the applicant.
Learned counsel for applicant has further submitted that the applicant fully cooperated during course of investigation. The Investigating Officer without collecting cogent and credible evidence filing charge sheet against the applicant in a routine manner. Therefore, there is apprehension of his arrest, hence, the applicant seek anticipatory bail and he is ready to cooperate with the trial. If the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will never misuse the same.
Further this anticipatory bail application is being pressed on the ground of parity as co-accused Nadeem Chaywala, Shahnawaz alais Sanu and Sharik having similar allegation against them, have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 09.12.2020, 5.4.2021 and 17.11.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 8835 of 2020, 6349 of 2021 and 15090 of 2021. Therefore, the present applicant is also entitled to get bail on the ground of parity. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
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 applicants 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.
In the event of arrest the applicant (Munna Dealer) shall be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of the trial in the aforesaid case crime for the aforesaid offences 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 not leave India during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
2. The applicant shall surrender their passports, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.
3. That 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;
4. 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.
5. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Trial Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1.
6. 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 their bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
(vii) The applicant is directed to immediately participate in the trial otherwise, benefit of this order shall not be made available to him.
Order Date :- 20.12.2022
Virendra
