Allahabad High Court
Hari Babu And Another 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. - 2708 of 2022
Applicant :- Hari Babu And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Jaideep Pandey,Mohd. Afzal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Ishraque Farooqui
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Rejoinder affidavit filed today, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and Mohd. Ishraque Farooqui, learned counsel for the informant.
This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Complaint Case No. 6346 of 2021 (Padam Singh Vs. Hari Babu and others), under sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506, 380 I.P.C., Police Station Majhola, District- Moradabad, during the pendency of investigation.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case due to pendency of civil suit between the parties. Complainant is real brother-in-law of applicant no. 1. The present complaint case has been filed against the applicant no. 1 and his all family members, total nine persons which includes seven female members. It is next submitted that out of total nine persons, two are the real sisters of complainant and three are nieces. It is next submitted that instead of filing application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., with a pre-planned manner, complainant has directly filed complaint case. All allegations are general in nature and no specific role has been assigned to any of the persons. It is next submitted that two co-accused, Km. Babita and Smt. Suman have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 4.4.2022 and 12.5.2022 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. Nos. 2107 of 2022 and 2703 of 2022 respectively. Applicants have no criminal history.
Learned AGA as well as counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the fact that all allegations are general in nature and all accused are direct relative of complainant as well as about the criminal history of applicants.
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.
In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants Hari Babu and Kumari Pooja 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 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 their bail and proceed against them 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.
With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 20.5.2022
Arvind
