Allahabad High Court
Santosh And Another vs State Of U.P. on 13 April, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2641 of 2023
Applicant :- Santosh And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri V.K. Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Complaint Case No.11551 of 2022, registered under Sections 452, 354, 323, 504, 506 and 427 IPC at Police Station- Soron, District Kasganj with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, an NCR was instituted by the informant against the applicants on 04.03.2022. Peeved by the said act of the informant, the applicants are stated to have barged into the house of the complainant on 06.03.2022 at about 6:30 PM, whereby ransacked the house and beating her up besides threatening her and criminally intimidating her.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. The application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved on 09.03.2022, which is too prompt, as such it has been moved within a period of three days of the alleged date of offence, thus the mandate of Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. could not have been fulfilled. The allegations levelled in the complaint case are per se false as the said application was treated as complaint by the Magistrate concerned. The Magistrate took cognizance of the matter and had issued process against the applicants vide order dated 15.09.2022. There is no previous criminal history of the applicants except the said NCR instituted against them. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they have co-operated in the investigation and are ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
6. 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 applicants.
7. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicants are 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 applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants- Santosh and Upendra be released forthwith in the aforesaid complaint case (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i). that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii). 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;
(iii). that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iv). that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(v). that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(vi). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
9. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
(Krishan Pahal, J.)
Order Date :- 13.4.2023
Ravi Kant
