Allahabad High Court
Mukesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 30 September, 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. - 9090 of 2022
Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Umair Mahmood
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Umair Mahmood, learned counsel for the applicant, Ram Chandra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ram Prakash Patel, 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.0017 of 2020, under Sections 186, 353, 427, 323, 504 and 506 IPC at Police Station- Najibabad, District Bijnor with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons is said to have assaulted the personnels of the electricity department over an altercation pertaining to a dispute emanating out of an electricity connection.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is a specially abled person and is unable to commit such an offence. 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. The charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant under the influence of the informant who is an Assistant Engineer in the Electricity Department. 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.
The prayer for anticipatory bail have been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. However, they could not dispute the said facts.
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- Mukesh Kumar 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 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 the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
5. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
6. 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 :- 30.9.2022
Ravi Kant
