Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Khari And Another 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. - 13148 of 2022
Applicant :- Pradeep Khari And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Vashisth
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants Pradeep Khari And Nishant Khan @ Nishat Khan with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No.91 of 2022, registered under Sections 419 and 420 IPC at Police Station- Sadar Bazar, District Meerut.
As per prosecution story, six buses were found plying illegally in front of bus stand of Meerut Depot, District Meerut.
Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants are not named in the FIR. Their names have come up later on, on account of their ownership of the said bus No. UP 14 AT 5279 and UP 13 AT 1360 and on the date of alleged offence, the applicants held a valid permit to run the said bus from Meerut to Ghaziabad, Delhi, Haridwar and back. The FIR is delayed by about 11 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has placed much reliance on the permit issued, which has been filed as annexure no.2 to the affidavit accompanying with the anticipatory bail application. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicants. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. Co-accused Samroz @ Samrez having similar role has been granted anticipatory bail application in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 10594 of 2022 on 9.12.2022. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant claims parity. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they have co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
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 applicants are arrested, they shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case 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 applicants shall not leave India during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
2. The applicants shall surrender their passports, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.
3. 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;
4. The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants.
5. In case, the applicants misuse 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 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 their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.
The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
Order Date :- 20.12.2022
Anuj Singh
