Allahabad High Court
Kripa Ram Chahar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 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. - 4242 of 2023
Applicant :- Kripa Ram Chahar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra Yadav, 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.371 of 1993, registered under Sections 193 and 420 IPC at Police Station- Loha Mandi, District Agra with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have applied for a plot from Agra Development Authority on 30.07.1988. The applicant is stated to have given an affidavit that he had purchased no other plot. The FIR was instituted on the ground that the applicant had another plot with him, thus the said affidavit was stated to be false. The FIR was instituted against him on 17.07.1993 with respect to an offence having been committed in the year 1989.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. No offence has been committed by him. The said plot was applied by him later on subsequent to the application in the present matter and the said plot was allotted to him on 14.09.1989. Learned counsel has further stated that the civil suit was filed by the applicant and has been decreed in his favour vide order dated 24.10.1997, which is annexed as annexure no.7 to the affidavit filed with the bail application. He has been deliberately harassed out of political rivalry. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The applicant is 70 years of age and a retired BSNL Officer. The applicant was running from pillar to post but has not misused the process of law.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the case being civil in nature has been converted into criminal one. The closure report was filed earlier on and the applicant has been summoned after the protest petition filed by the informant. 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. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Kripa Ram Chahar 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.
10. 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 :- 24.4.2023
Ravi Kant
