Allahabad High Court
Amarnath Maurya And Another vs State Of U.P Thru Principal ... on 22 July, 2022
Bench: Ajai Tyagi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2479 of 2022
Applicant :- Amarnath Maurya And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru Principal Secretary Home And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Saksham Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.
The instant application is being moved by the applicants invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. that they has every reason to believe that they may be arrested on the accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence in connection with Case Crime No. 260 of 2021, under Sections 143, 384, 406, 506 IPC, Police Station- Robertsganj, District- Sonbhadra.
From the record, it is evident that the applicants have approached this Court after getting his anticipatory bail rejected from the court of sessions vide order dated 04.02.2022.
Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter-XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc.Anticipatory Bail Application u/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.8072 of 2020 (Govind Mishra @ Chhotu vs. State of UP), hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned AGA as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (UP Amendment) is not required.
Heard Mr. Saurabh Pandey, learned Advocate holding brief of Mr. Saksham Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicants have got no criminal antecedents and they have not undergone any imprisonment after conviction by any court of law in relation to any cognizable offence previously. An assurance was also advanced by learned counsel for the applicants on behalf of the applicants that they would render all requisite co-operation and assistance in the process of law and with the investigating agency and shall not create any hindrance to reach to its logical conclusion and shall not flee from the course of justice.
Learned counsel for the applicants has strenuously argued that the applicants have been made target just to besmirch their reputation and belittle them in the public estimate by the informant. Number of arguments were advanced by learned counsel for the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the accusation made in the FIR against the applicants by the informant. Learned counsel for the applicants has also relied upon the judgments in the cases of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, [(2014) 8 SCC 273]; Joginder Kumar vs. State of UP & others [(1994) 4 SCC 260] and Sanaul Haque vs. State of UP & another [2008 CrLJ 1998], to buttress his contentions.
Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that false F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicants through an application filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C It is next submitted that son of applicants had died at the farmhouse of the complainant for which the First Information Report was lodged on 05.12.2022 against the complainant and others, which was registered as Case Crime No.0796 of 2020, under Section 304 I.P.C. at Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra. Thereafter, as a counter blast the complainant has lodged the present FIR making false allegation of extortion of money against the applicants. Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the material collected by the investigation so far is not credible or adequate enough at this stage to substantiate the indictment made against the applicants and the matter deserves deeper fair investigation into the case.
Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application by mentioning that though the applicants have got no criminal antecedents, but there is nothing on record to satisfy that the police personnel are after the applicants to arrest them. The alleged apprehension on behalf of applicants are imaginary and unfounded one. Learned AGA has also submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made in the FIR, the applicants are not entitled for any relaxation from this Court.
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.
The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways, which may be adversely affect the investigation and subsequent stage of the case, the Court directs that in the even of arrest of the applicants- Amarnath Maurya and Smt. Geeta Maurya in aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer /court below concerned with the following condition that :-
(i) the applicants shall make themselves available for the interrogation by the police as and when required. The Investigating Officer of the case would give 48 hours prior notice or telephonically inform the concerned accused-applicants to remain available to him for the purpose of interrogation and the accused-applicants is obliged to abide by such directions.
(ii) the applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threats or comments to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the correct facts to the court or to the police officer.
(iii) the Investigating Officer of the case would make all necessary endeavour to gear up the investigation in utmost transparent and professional way and would try to conclude the same within a maximum period of 90 days. During this period, the accused-applicant would not leave the State of Uttar Pradesh without informing the Investigating Officer of the case and sharing his contact number.
(iv) in the event, the applicants is having his passport, he will have to surrender the same before the concerned SP/SSP of the District till the submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
In the event, the applicant breaches or attempts to breach any of the aforesaid conditions or willfully violate above conditions or abstains himself from the investigation, it would be open for the Investigating Officer or the concerned authority to apply before the court of session for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant and the court of session has every liberty and freedom to revoke the anticipatory bail after recording the reasons for the same.
Order Date :- 22.7.2022
P.S.Parihar
