Allahabad High Court
Prashant @ Tallu vs State Of U.P. on 17 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. - 3836 of 2023
Applicant :- Prashant @ Tallu
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Harshit Pathak,Anurag Pathak
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Harshit Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, 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 applicant in Case Crime No.389 of 2022, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC and Section 3/25 (1-AAA) of Arms Act at Police Station- Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, some large group of persons are stated to have been found firing indiscriminately in air on 18.12.2022.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The FIR itself is delayed by two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has further stated that on the information of a squealer, eight accused persons are stated to have been identified, namely, Gaurav @ Bhura, Vipul, Prince, Saurabh, Shivam, Ashwini, Shanker and Aashu. Learned counsel has further stated that the squealer has even not named the applicant. The four accused persons, namely, Vipul, Prince, Saurabh and Shivam, were arrested by the police and the name of the applicant has come up in the statement of the arrested co-accused persons, which is not admissible under Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel has placed much reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Venkatesh alias Chandra vs. State of Karnataka, AIROnline 2022 SC 595, whereby it is categorically stated that the recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is not a mere formality and the statement made thereupon to the police personnel, is not admissible against him. There is no criminal history of the applicant. 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. 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.
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 applicant.
7. 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.
8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Prashant @ Tallu be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i). that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii). 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;
(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(vii). 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 :- 17.4.2023
Ravi Kant
