Allahabad High Court
Akram vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 October, 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. - 10196 of 2022
Applicant :- Akram
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Babhru Vahan Singh,Sharad Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Babhru Vahan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Smt. Ladli Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 503 of 2021, under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station- Mandi, District- Saharanpur, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.
Admittedly, the applicant was enlarged on regular bail vide order dated 17.2.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, but later on, the final report has been filed in added Sections i.e. 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Learned counsel has argued that said sections have been added just to frustrate the case of the applicant, so that he may be sent behind the bars. Learned counsel has stated that once the applicant has been admitted to bail and there is nothing on record to suggest that he has misused it or have committed any other offence, then he may be enlarged on bail in the added Sections under the provisions of 438 Cr.P.C. He has further stated that the applicant does not have any criminal antecedent to his credit. 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. It is further stated that applicant is co-operating in the trial and is ready to cooperate in future also.
Learned Counsel 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. Learned Counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.9742 of 2021, wherein the accused was enlarged on anticipatory bail after being granted regular bail.
Per contra, the prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, she could not dispute the said facts advanced by learned Counsel for the applicant.
It is true that the applicant was enlarged on bail in the said F.I.R. and he has not misused it during investigation and no apprehension of tampering with evidence has been raised by the A.G.A. Sending the applicant behind bars again in the added sections would be of no fruitful use.
On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the case law produced by learned counsel for applicant, and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-(2020) 5 SCC 1", the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to the applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgement of the Apex Court.
In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest, let the accused-applicant Akram be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on bail on furnishing a personal bond with 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 in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant;
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 :- 19.10.2022
Shalini
