Allahabad High Court
Raj Kumar Budhauliya vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 28 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. - 17982 of 2021
Applicant :- Raj Kumar Budhauliya
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail as the accused-applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Case Crime No.46 of 2021, under Sections 379, 411, 420, 467 & 468 IPC and Section 4/21 of the Mine & Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and 3/5 of the Prevention of Public Property Damages Act, 1984, Police Station Khanna, District Mahoba.
Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case.The applicant is not named in the FIR. Nothing incriminating articles has been recovered from his possession. The applicant has no concerned with regarding the transportation of the grit. The applicant is only the owner of the vehicle. It is further submitted that interim protection was granted by this Court vide order dated 4.12.2021. Now the charge sheet has been filed against the applicant without collecting credible and cogent evidence. During investigation, the applicant fully cooperated, therefore no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant, hence, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial and he is ready to cooperate with the trial. If the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will never misuse the same. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director, AIR 2021 Supreme Court 4154.
Learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail to the applicant. Thus, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.
I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aman Preet Singh (Supra), the Court has observed as under:
"10. Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170 Cr.P.C., the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail.
11. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."
In Aman Preet Singh (supra), the Court has clearly held that if a person, who is an accused in a non-bailable/cognizable offence, was not taken into custody during the period of investigation, in such a case, it is appropriate that he may be released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicant (Raj Kumar Budhauliya), be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number by the trial Court till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and, two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned with the following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall not leave India during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(ii) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.
(iii) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when 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;
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation;
(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code; and
(vi) 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.
(vii) The applicant is directed to immediately participate in the trial otherwise, benefit of this order shall not be made available to him.
Order Date :- 28.11.2022
Virendra
