Allahabad High Court
Bhupendra @ Bablu And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. on 21 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. - 13221 of 2022
Applicant :- Bhupendra @ Bablu And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ankur Singh Kushwaha
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
By means of the supplementary affidavit, the applicants has filed order sheet of the trial court and statement of the first informant and other witnesses, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Dharmendra Singhal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ankur Singh Kushwaha and Sri Shivendra Raj Singhal, 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 Bhupendra @ Bablu, Ompal and Rakesh with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No.65 of 1992 under Sections 307 IPC, Police Station- Titavi, District- Muzaffar Nagar.
It is contended on behalf of the applicants that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case.He further submitted that the F.I.R. of the present case has been lodged with allegation that on 19.6.1992 at about 7:00 p.m., the first informant and his son were present at tube-well and then due to old enmity all the three applicants opened fire. The fire of the applicant no. 1 inflicted injury to son of the first informant, namely, Mangey Ram on his thigh. On this allegation, F.I.R. was lodged against the applicants under Sections 307 I.P.C.
During the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the independent witnesses. After recording the statement, the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that injuries were caused due to rash and negligence act of the injured when the injured started swinging the pistol then bullet was fired and injuries were caused in to the thigh. He further submitted that after submission of the final report; protest petition was filed by the first informant and the applicants were summoned for facing trial.
He further submitted that the applicants earlier approached before this Court by means of Application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 7152 of 1992 in which protection was granted to the applicants and ultimately, the said Application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The applicants have no knowledge about the dismissal of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and when the non bailable warrant was issued against the applicants then they came to the knowledge about the pendency of the present case. Thereafter, the applicants immediately approached to the trial court for seeking anticipatory bail, which was duly rejected by the trial court.
One of the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicants is that both the injured and first informant are no more. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that at present compromise arrived at between the legal heirs of the injured and applicant regarding that the compromise affidavit of brother of the injured and son of the injured filed before the A.C.J.M. court and also submitted that there is bleak chance of conviction. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the matter pertains to the year, 1992 and almost 30 years has bee lapsed. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that presently the applicants are well rooted in society. Hence, the applicants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail and they are ready to cooperate with the trial. If the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they will never misuse the same. Learned counsel for the applicants 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, I am of view that no action is required against the applicants and therefore, 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 :- 21.12.2022
Anuj Singh
