Allahabad High Court
Rahul Pandey vs State Of U.P. on 22 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. - 11108 of 2022
Applicant :- Rahul Pandey
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Brahma Nand Singh,Rajiv Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ran Vijay Singh
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Brahma Nand Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, 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.0053 of 2022 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506, 427, 34 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932 at Police Station- Shivpur, District Varanasi with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
The case of the applicant is at par with the co-accused person, Sujal Raj Singh @ Shani, who has already been granted anticipatory bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.10.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.9249 of 2022. Therefore, the present applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he will cooperate in the trial failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the applicant has criminal history of eight cases of similar nature. Learned counsel has further stated that there is every likelihood that the applicant may repeat the said offence.
The prayer for anticipatory bail has also been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that if otherwise the case for anticipatory bail is made out, then he can't be sent behind bars on account of criminal antecedents. The applicant is not a previous convict. The said criminal history has been explained in para 13 of the affidavit accompanying the anticipatory bail application.
On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the fact that the co-accused person has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail, 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 applicants 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- Rahul Pandey 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 Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/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 in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
5. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
6. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
7. 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 :- 22.11.2022
Ravi Kant
