Allahabad High Court
Amjad vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 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. - 9937 of 2022
Applicant :- Amjad
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Shiromani Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Ram Shiromani Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. Ladli Yadav, 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. 238 of 2021, under Section 420, 406 I.P.C. at Police Station- Baniyather, District Sambhal with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
As per prosecution story, the applicant is said to have usurped an amount of Rs. 50,000/- of the informant on the pretext of getting it doubled within a period of five years. Neither he is stated to have returned the amount nor has given any interest on it.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there is nothing on record to establish that the applicant has committed the alleged crime. The F.I.R. is more than one year delayed and there is no explanation of the said delay. The applicant has no criminal antecedent. 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- Amjad 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 :- 20.10.2022
VPS
