Allahabad High Court
Shyamnarayan Sonker And 3 Others vs State Of U.P.And 3 Others on 25 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. - 2329 of 2022
Applicant :- Shyamnarayan Sonker And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Imran Ibrahim,Praveen Kumar Singh,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,D.M.Tripathi
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Praveen Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri D.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for informant and learned AGA for the State.
This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 13 of 2022, under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 376, 377, 494 I.P.C. and section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station -Sakaldeeha, District- Chandauli, during the pendency of investigation.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants themselves are cheated by their family member i.e. son of applicant No. 1, who has solemnized marriage with victim. The said marriage was also registered, but son of applicant No. 1 has never informed his family members about his marriage. For his illegal offence, applicants may not be responsible at any stage coupled with this fact that they have no criminal history. Therefore, they may be granted anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned AGA as well as Sri D.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for informant has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that money was on-line transferred into the account of applicant No. 1, therefore, case under section 498-A is made out against applicant No. 1.
Being confronted by the Court, learned counsel for applicants could not dispute the transaction of money in the account of applicant No. 1 from family members of victim.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for parties, nature of accusations and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, no case of anticipatory bail of applicant/accused No. 1 is made out. Hence, anticipatory bail filed on behalf of applicant No. 1 is hereby rejected.
At this stage, learned counsel for applicants submitted that after surrender, applicant No. 1 would move bail application before the Court below and a direction may be issued to decide the same expeditiously.
Needless to say, after surrender, in case bail application is filed, Court below shall make all endeavor to decide the same in accordance with law, expeditiously.
However, so far as applicant Nos. 2 to 4 are concerned, in view of nature of allegations and above stated facts, they are entitled for anticipatory bail.
The anticipatory bail applications of applicant Nos. 2 to 4 are allowed.
Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant Nos. 2 to 4, 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 applicant Nos. 2 to 4 shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant Nos. 2 to 4 -Geeta Devi, Amitraj & Monika 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 Nos. 2 to 4 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 Nos. 2 to 4 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 applicant Nos. 2 to 4 shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(4) The applicant Nos. 2 to 4 shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(5) The applicant Nos. 2 to 4 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 applicant Nos. 2 to 4.
(6) In case, the applicant Nos. 2 to 4 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 applicant Nos. 2 to 4 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 applicant Nos. 2 to 4.
With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.5.2022
Sartaj
