Allahabad High Court
Khajan Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 9 September, 2022
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5605 of 2022
Applicant :- Khajan Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Som Veer
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Pachauri
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
This anticipatory bail application under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Complaint Case no. 1147 of 2010 arising out of Case Crime No. 86 of 2010, under Sections- 147/148/149/307/504/506 IPC, Police Station- Baldev, District- Mathura.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged by Yogendra Singh against the applicant as case crime no. 86 of 2010 U/s 147/148/149/307/504/506 IPC. In the alleged incident, four persons had got firearm injury. But after investigation, the final report on the basis of statements of witnesses was submitted against the applicant on 31.3.2010. Being aggrieved with this final report, the protest petition was filed by the wife of the complainant and on protest application, the applicant was summoned to face trial U/s 147/148/149/324/504/506 IPC vide order dated 28.3.2011. Being aggrieved with this summoning order, from the applicant's side approached revisional court by means of revision and the revisional court accepted the revision of the complainant and directed the trial court to pass fresh summoning order and this case was treated as a complaint case. In pursuance of revision, learned Magistrate court passed an order dated 20.1.2014 and summoned the applicant to face complaint case U/s 147/148/149/307/504/506 IPC. Being aggrieved with this order, the complainant filed revision before sessions court, but the same was rejected by the sessions court. The said summoning order U/s 147/148/149/307/504/506 IPC was surviving. Being aggrieved with this summoning order, the applicant approached this Court by means of Application U/s 482 CrPC No. 30929 of 2016 in which this Court passed the order with the direction to the applicant to appear before the court below within two months vide order dated 19.10.2016.
The counsel for the applicant submits that the case is pending since 2016 and no coercive process was issued against the applicant. But ultimately, NBW was issued against the applicant on 21.2.2022. The injury inflicted on the injured persons is simple in nature. The applicant is an old person aged about 72 years. Due to the aforesaid NBW dated 21.2.2022, the applicant has apprehension of arrest, therefore, he seeks anticipatory bail. The applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial and undertakes that if he is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of the same.
Learned A.G.A. as well as the counsel for the first informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that due to non-cooperation of the applicant, the proceeding is unnecessarily pending before the court below and offence is serious in nature. It is further submitted that the firearm injury inflicted on all the injured persons by the applicant is serious in nature.
It is made clear that as the present applicant is being granted anticipatory bail on the basis of his old age, therefore, this order for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not be treated as parity for other co-accused persons.
It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.
In the instant case, considering the age of the applicant, the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and the fact that the applicant has already been granted bail by the court below U/s 147/148/149/324/504/506 IPC by order dated 29.3.2011, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.
The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
In the event of arrest, the applicant- Khajan Singh involved in the aforesaid complaint case arising out of case crime no. 86/2010 shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
(1) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation;
(2) 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; and
(3) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(4) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(5) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.
(6) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
(7) 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.
In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
Order Date :- 9.9.2022
Shravan
