Allahabad High Court
Manager Singh vs State Of U.P. on 19 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. - 3997 of 2023
Applicant :- Manager Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Juned Alam
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. Heard Sri Juned Alam, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.
2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Criminal Case No.4777 of 2010 arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No. 412 of 2007, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC, Police Station Kasya, District Kushi Nagar, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
3. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have executed a sale-deed to the land without title.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has apprehension of his arrest.. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has further stated that he has been put to double jeopardy as earlier on, the FIR was instituted against him as Case Crime No. 15 of 2005 and the closure report was filed with respect to it and the same was accepted by the court concerned. Subsequent to it, another FIR has been instituted against the applicant on 04.07.2007 with respect to the occurrence dated 10.03.2004. Learned counsel has argued that already a civil suit is pending between the parties regarding the same property which is annexed as Annexure-20 of the affidavit annexed to the anticipatory bail application as such, the Original Suit No.649 of 2006 is still pending before the court concerned.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the police was pleased to file a closure report in the present case also on 23.01.2008 but on the protest petition of the informant, the Court was pleased to pass an order for further investigation vide order dated 14.11.2008. The applicant had challenged the said order for further investigation and the proceedings were stayed vide order dated 09.01.2009 of this Court. Subsequent to it, the final report (charge-sheet) was submitted by the Investigating Officer under duress on 28.03.2010. The said proceedings were also challenged by the applicant in this Court and were stayed vide order dated 30.09.2011 which is also annexed as Annexure-14 to the affidavit filed along with anticipatory bail application but later on, the same has been vacated in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. and Another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2018 (16) SCC 299. The applicant is ready to cooperate with investigation and in trial as well.
5. 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. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents except one FIR instituted regarding the said property prior to the present FIR. The said matter stands settled once for all, thus, the criminal history of the applicant stands explained. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.
6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
7. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.
8. Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.
9. In the event of arrest of the applicant, Manager Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-
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 previous permission of the court;
iv. that 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;
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.
11. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory 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.
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
Order Date :- 19.4.2023/Siddhant
