Allahabad High Court
Ashish Mohan vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 May, 2022
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3302 of 2022
Applicant :- Ashish Mohan
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Saxena,Atul Kumar Shahi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 378 of 2021, under sections 420, 406, 409 I.P.C. and 3/7 The Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Police Station Fatehganj East, District- Bareilly, during the pendency of investigation.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He next submitted that earlier, applicant has challenged the recovery warrant by filing Writ C No. 35503 of 2021 (M/s Saar Impex Private Limited Vs. The State of U.P. and 4 others) before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 10.02.2022 in which Division Bench has held that as there is an arbitration clause, therefore, no recovery warrant can be issued and matter must be referred to Arbitration. Under the order of this Court, applicant deposited the money in dispute and approached before Arbitrator. He next submitted that for the very same incident, present FIR has been lodged, which is not a legal proceeding in light of aforesaid judgment of Division Bench of this Court. Applicant has no criminal history.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is 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 applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant Ashish Mohan involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50, 000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
(1) The applicant 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 applicant 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and
(3) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(4) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(5) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 applicant.
(6) In case, the applicant misuses 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 applicant 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 his 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 applicant.
With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 20.5.2022/Arvind
