Allahabad High Court
Sumit vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 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. - 4006 of 2023
Applicant :- Sumit
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rohit Dubey, 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.102 of 2022, registered under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 354 I.P.C. at Police Station Jaswantnagar, District Etawah with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and other co-accused persons were the tenants of the informant prior to the date of occurrence. The applicant had vacated the said shop but had not handed over the keys to the informant and also had not paid rent of the said shop. When the informant went to the shop of the applicant on 30.12.2021 to fetch the keys and rent, the applicant and other co-accused persons are said to have assaulted her and are stated to have outraged her modesty and even robbed her valuable ornaments and Rs.72,000/-
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel has stated that the charge-sheet has been submitted but no offence under Section 395 I.P.C. has been found by the Investigating Officer and final report aka charge-sheet has been filed under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354 I.P.C. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit. The matter is of payment of rent of the said shop which the applicant had taken on rent and he had been made an accused on account of said rivalry. The FIR itself is delayed by about more than two months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the FIR was instituted after moving an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. No injury has been sustained 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. 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- Sumit 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 :- 27.4.2023
Vikas
