Allahabad High Court
Pravesh Yadav (Second ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 13 September, 2022
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 91 of 2022
Applicant :- Pravesh Yadav (Second Anticipatory Bail)
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt.Home Lucknow And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Hanumant Lal Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicant and Sri Vivek Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused record.
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 FIR/Case Crime No.122 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 395, 397, 332, 353, 504, 506, 427, 336, 307, 34 I.P.C. and Sections 131, 132(3) & 135A The Representation of the People Act, Police Station Kandhayee, District Pratapgarh.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the co-accused Altaf and Nizamuddin have already been granted anticipatory bail by this court vide order dated 07.12.2021 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.5932 of 2021, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. The aforesaid order dated 07.12.2021 is quoted below:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in F.I.R. No.0122/2021, under Section 147, 148, 149, 395, 397, 332, 353, 504, 506, 427, 336, 307, 34 Indian Penal Code and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 131, 132(2), 135(A) Peoples Representation Act, Police Station Kandhai, District Pratapgarh with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that according to First Information Report it is alleged that the applicants and other co-accused persons have attacked with fire arm, brick stone and lathi-danda and abused the police and election team with intention to loot the ballot box. Although, as per prosecution story, the attack was made by fire arm, however, there is no injury of fire arm. The applicants have not contested any election. They have not supported any candidate. Only being a valid voter they have cast their votes and stayed at their homes but the police has falsely implicated the applicants. There is no need of custodial interrogation.
It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that the applicants are innocent. During the course of investigation the applicants have cooperated with the investigation and there was no need of the custodial interrogation of the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98, anticipatory bail application of the applicants may be allowed.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and having no criminal antecedents, the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.
Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the applicants Altaf and Nizamuddin, in the aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-
1. that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
2. that the applicants 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 or tamper with the evidence;
3. that the applicants 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 applicants;
5. that the investigating officer is directed to conclude the investigation in the present case in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this court while considering or deciding the present bail application of the applicants;
6. that the applicants are directed to produce certified copy of this order before the S.S.P/SP concerned within 10 days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of the present order.
7. that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
8. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
9. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
10. that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail."
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the bail application is allowed.
In view of the fact that co-accused Altaf and Nizamuddin have been granted anticipatory bail in same case crime by this Court, therefore, the applicant Pravesh Yadav, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) That the accused-applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation;
(ii) That the accused-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; and
(iii) That the accused-applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 13.9.2022/Atul
