Allahabad High Court
Shri Achchhe Lal Yadav And 2 Others vs State Of U.P And 2 Others on 21 July, 2022
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6400 of 2022
Applicant :- Shri Achchhe Lal Yadav And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Bachcha Lal Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicants (Shri Achchhe Lal Yadav, Smt. Bachmuna Devi and Shri Ram Vilas Yadav) apprehending their arrest in Case Crime No.421 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 & 506 Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Cantt., District-Prayagraj.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the present applicants have been falsely implicated in this case as they have not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.).
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicant No.1 is the father-in-law, applicant No.2 is the mother-in-law and applicant No.3 is the maternal-uncle (Mama) of the victim.
Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that the husband (Promod Singh Yadav) of the victim has been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Court vide order dated 20.11.2021.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has co-operated with the investigation and the charge-sheet has been filed and the present applicants shall co-operate with the trial proceedings.
Therefore, he has submitted that in view of the dictums of Hon'ble Aprex Court in re: Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director, Criminal Appeal No.929 of 2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5234/2021) and Siddharth vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.838 of 2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5442/2021), wherein the Apex Court has observed that if the accused has co-operated with the investigation and the charge-sheet has been filed, his arrest may not be treated as warranted.
On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants but he could not dispute the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the applicants.
The Hon'ble Aprex Court in re: Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director, Criminal Appeal No.929 of 2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5234/2021) has considered the decision of Delhi High Court in re; Court on its own Motion vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2004) 72 DRJ 629, wherein the guideline was formulated that if any accused person has not been arrested during investigation and has co-operated with the investigation, there is no need to arrest him after filing charge sheet, particularly, if the nature of offences is not so serious. In the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court has considered its own judgment in re; Siddharth vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.838 of 2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5442/2021), whereby the Apex Court considering the observation of the well celebrated judgment in re; Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Ors, (1994) 4 SCC 260, has observed that the arrest is not mandatory in all cases and if the accused person is cooperating with investigation, there is no need to arrest. The Apex Court in re; Siddharth (supra) has also considered one aspect that if accused person has not been arrested during investigation, there would be no need to arrest him after filing charge sheet, if it is not so warranted. The Apex Court in re; Aman Preet Singh (supra) has directed all the High Courts to circulate the judgment passed in re; Siddharth (supra) for its compliance.
Besides, the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 has observed that anticipatory bail may be granted till conclusion of trial.
Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue and having considered the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and also considering the dictums of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in re: Aman Preet Singh (supra) and Siddharth (supra) and Sushila Aggarwal (supra), I am of the opinion that the protection may be granted to the present applicants till conclusion of the trial.
Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is allowed.
Therefore, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicants-Shri Achchhe Lal Yadav, Smt. Bachmuna Devi and Shri Ram Vilas Yadav), shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation made by a police officer as and when required;
2. 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 her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
3. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
4. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
5. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
6. that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
7. that in case the charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with evidence during trial.
8. that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.
Order Date :- 21.7.2022 [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
Suresh
