Allahabad High Court
Sumit And Another vs State Of U.P And Another on 20 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. - 4439 of 2022
Applicant :- Sumit And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vikrant Pratap Singh
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 Case Crime No. 114 of 2018, under sections- 307, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Phase-3, Noida, District Gautambudh Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that from the complainant's side, no one got injury in the alleged incident. During investigation, the applicants were not arrested by the police and the charge-sheet was filed against the applicants in the year 2018. However, the applicants came to know about the said charge-sheet, when N.B.W. was issued against them. Therefore, they immediately approached the sessions court and moved the anticipatory bail application before the sessions court, but the sessions court without appreciating the material available on record rejected the same. However, no offence is made out against the applicants, hence, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial. It is further submitted that the co-accused namely, Jile Singh and Mahesh have already been granted anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial by a coordinate bench of this Court in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 4639 of 2022. Therefore, the present applicants are also entitled for bail. In support of his submission, he has also relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director, AIR 2021 Supreme Court 4154.
Learned A.G.A. as well as the counsel for the first informant has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that attempt of murder by country made pistol was assigned to the applicants. The role is different from the aforesaid co-accused. Due to non-appearance, N.B.W. was issued against the applicants. The offence is serious in nature and as such, the application is liable to be rejected.
I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aman Preet Singh (Supra), the Court has observed as under:
"10. Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170 Cr.P.C., the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail.
11. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."
In Aman Preet Singh (supra), the Court has clearly held that if a person, who is an accused in a non-bailable/cognizable offence, was not taken into custody during the period of investigation, in such a case, it is appropriate that he may be released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicants- Sumit and Nandkishor be released on anticipatory bail by the trial Court till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and, two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned with the following conditions:
(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when 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;
(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation;
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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.
Order Date :- 20.7.2022
Shravan
