Allahabad High Court
Rajpal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 September, 2022
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5947 of 2022
Applicant :- Rajpal
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Wajid Ali
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- Rajpal with a prayer to release on bail in Case Crime No. 171 of 2017, under Sections 147, 420, 447, 448, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Bahsuma, District- Meerut.
It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, as he is witness of murder of husband of co-accused-Rajesh Kumari. He further submitted that after lodging of the F.I.R. the applicant approached before this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 19020 of 2018 in which this Court granted stay of arrest till filing of charge sheet. He further submitted that as a matter of fact, house no. 92, which is being alleged to be his own house by the opposite party no. 2, is completely misplaced as the house no. 92 which has further renumbered as House no. 97 belongs to co-accused Rajesh Kumar and she has been residing therein for quite long time. Civil dispute is also pending between the first informant and co-accused Rajesh Kumari.
It is further submitted that without collecting cogent and credible evidence the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the applicant in a routine manner before the court in the year, 2019 and cognizance has been taken on 6.2.2021. Non bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant, therefore, there is apprehension of his arrest. He further submitted that after filing of charge sheet the applicant approached before this Court by filing of an Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Further submission is that the applicant fully cooperated with the investigation. There is no evidence against the applicant. The case of the applicant is on better footing than the co-accused, Rajesh Kumari, who has been granted anticipatory bail in CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 18537 of 2021 on 24.1.2022. Hence, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail and he is ready to cooperate with the trial. If the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will never misuse the same. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
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 settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.
In the event of arrest the applicant is arrested, he/her shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case for the aforesaid offences 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 not leave India during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
2. The applicant shall surrender passports, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. The passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.
3. 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
4. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that the applicant 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.
5. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Trial Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1.
6. 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 bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
Order Date :- 26.9.2022
Anuj Singh
