Allahabad High Court
Gyaneshwar @ Deepak Dwievdi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 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. - 11355 of 2022
Applicant :- Gyaneshwar @ Deepak Dwievdi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh K. Dwivedi,Gopal Misra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Gopal Misra, 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.512 of 2010, registered under Sections 147, 148, 353, 332, 336, 341, 308, 323, 504, 506, 427, 379 IPC & 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act at Police Station- Patherwa, District Kushi Nagar with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
As per prosecution story, eighteen named and some unknown persons are stated to have been involved in rioting at the polling booth of Primary School, Parsauni, District Kushinagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is neither named in the FIR nor his name has come up in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The final report/charge-sheet was filed against the named accused persons only and later on when the applicant got elected as a Member of the Zila Panchayat, a supplementary charge-sheet has been filed against him at the behest of ruling party. 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 has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
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, 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- Gyaneshwar @ Deepak Dwievdi be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal 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 :- 29.11.2022
Ravi Kant
