Allahabad High Court
Satish @ Patiram vs State Of U.P. on 21 November, 2022
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11519 of 2022
Applicant :- Satish @ Patiram
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Pati Tiwari,Piyush Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Anand Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.27 of 2018, under Section 308 IPC at Police Station- Sahayal, District Auraiya with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
Admittedly, the applicant was enlarged on regular bail by the court concerned vide order dated 31.01.2022 under Sections 452, 323, 336, 504 and 506 IPC. The said fact has been mentioned in the rejection order of the Sessions Judge Auraiya dated 27.10.2022. Later on, the final report has been submitted in added Section 308 IPC. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant has not misused the said liberty granted to him earlier on. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment and is ready to co-operate in trial failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant has placed much reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court passed in case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in 2016 (1) SCC (Cri) 240 and Manoj Suresh Jadhav & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra, reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3428, wherein the applicant therein was enlarged on anticipatory bail in the added sections U/S 438 Cr.P.C. after being enlarged on regular bail U/S 439 Cr.P.C.
The prayer for anticipatory bail have been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, he could not dispute the said facts.
On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant and the aforesaid case law produced by learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Satish @ Patiram be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
2. that 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 or tamper with the evidence;
3. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
4. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
5. that the applicant 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.
It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial or deciding the regular bail application.
Order Date :- 21.11.2022
Ravi Kant
