Allahabad High Court
Jai Narain Sharma And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 July, 2022
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5934 of 2022
Applicant :- Jai Narain Sharma And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Gopal Misra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
This anticipatory bail application under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No. 1433 of 1985, under sections- 379 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Urai, District Jalaun.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that earlier the opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR against the applicants in the year 1984 in which he alleged that while he was returning from Kanpur by bus to Orai, he got down from the bus and lost his bag containing Rs. 520 and two pairs of clothes of Rs. 250/-. Thereafter, the statements of the witnesses were recorded during course of investigation and the final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer. Later on, proceedings U/s 182 IPC were initiated against the opposite party no.2. It is further submitted that the said final report was accepted by the court concerned on 10.4.1986. Later on, on the basis of same allegations, the opposite party no.2 filed complaint case against the applicants. After recording statements of the complainant and witnesses U/s 200 and 202 CrPC respectively, the court below summoned the applicants U/s 379 IPC. The said summoning order was challenged by the applicants before this Court by means of Application U/s 482 CrPC No. 10014 of 1985 in which this Court vide order dated 19.9.1985 stayed further proceedings of the case. But later on, due to sad demise of earlier counsel, the case was dismissed for want of prosecution. Being aggrieved, the applicants moved the anticipatory bail application before the court below, but the same was rejected by the court below on 9.6.202. Hence, the applicants have filed this application.
The counsel for the applicants submits that no offence is made out against the applicants. The applicants are about 75 years old.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said facts.
Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicants, they are directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
In the event of arrest, the applicants- Jai Narain Sharma and Shiv Narain Sharma involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail 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 co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation;
(2) 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; and
(3) The applicants shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(4) The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(5) 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.
(6) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
(7) 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 him in accordance with law.
In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.
Order Date :- 12.7.2022
Shravan
