Allahabad High Court
Saroj Kumar @ Arvind Yadav vs State Of U.P. Through Secretary ... on 22 November, 2022
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 77 of 2022
Applicant :- Saroj Kumar @ Arvind Yadav
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Verma,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard Shri Shiv Nath Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by learned counsel for the applicant, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
This anticipatory bail application under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0605 of 2021, under Sections - 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station - Civil Lines , District - Moradabad, during the pendency of trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. The learned counsel further submits that earlier the applicant has got anticipatory bail till filing of police report 173(2) CrPC vide order dated 27.1.2022. Being the husband of the beneficiary, the applicant has been falsely roped in the case. The applicant is in estranged relationship. It is further submitted that during course of investigation, the applicant was never arrested and he fully cooperated with the investigation. But the Investigating Officer without collecting any cogent and credible evidence filed charge-sheet against the applicant. There is no need of custodial interrogation further.
The applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial and undertakes that if he is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of the same. He further undertakes that he shall immediately appear before the trial court and participate in the trial, failing which the anticipatory bail granted to him shall automatically be cancelled.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
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 applicant 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.
In the event of arrest, the applicant- Saroj Kumar @ Arvind Yadav involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond 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 them 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 him 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.
Order Date :- 22.11.2022
Shravan
