Allahabad High Court
Rishabh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 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. - 2133 of 2023
Applicant :- Rishabh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Sushil Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, 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 Complaint Case No.2818 of 2022, registered under Sections 326, 452, 504, 307, 34 I.P.C. at Police Station Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with other family members are stated to have barged into the house of the informant and are stated to have assaulted her by knife, thereby causing grievous injuries to her. The complaint case was filed on 7.8.2015 as such after the statement of witnesses, the applicant and other co-accused persons were summoned vide order dated 6.5.2022.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The present complaint case is counterblast to FIR No.1007 of 2015 which was instituted on 1.8.2105 the same day of the occurrence. Learned counsel has stated that the present complaint case is delayed by about seven days and even the medical examination of the victim has been taken up on 3.8.2015, which is delayed by two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the brother-in-law of the informant, who happens to be husband of sister of the applicant, is in Delhi Police and has misused his power to get the said complaint case instituted. The sister of the applicant herself is a victim and the present complaint case is just to coerce her to enter into compromise in the said FIR No.1007 of 2015. The injuries sustained are fake as is evident from the fact that the duration of injuries is stated to be 3-4 days only, which does not match with the date of occurrence. The applicant has no criminal antecedent to his credit. 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 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 counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the informant had sustained grievous injuries which is but evident from the injury report filed as Annexure No.6 to the affidavit whereby the injury no.1 is stitched wound which is at her vital part of the body. Learned counsel has further stated that the father of the applicant is in police department at UP only as such he got the said FIR registered promptly by misusing his clout.
8. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A., taking into consideration that there is family dispute going on between the parties and FIR was instituted prior to the institution of present compliant case 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- Rishabh be released forthwith in the aforesaid complaint case (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 :- 25.4.2023
Vikas
