Allahabad High Court
Manoj Tiwari 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. - 2443 of 2023
Applicant :- Manoj Tiwari
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Amritesh Dwivedi,Ashok Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Amritesh Dwivedi, 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 Range Case No.14/2020-21, Complaint Case No.3384 of 2021 (Forest Department vs. Manoj Tiwari), under Section 26(1) f of Indian Forest Act and Sections 27, 29, 51(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, at Range Madhvalia, Beet Dudhrai, Police Station- Nichlaul, District Maharajganj with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, in all hundred bundles of fresh bent (a variety of bamboo) was recovered from the land belonging to the applicant, as such the complaint case was filed by the forest department.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has the permission go cut the said bent grown in his own field. He has nothing to do with the said offence. Learned counsel has further stated that there is a Government Order by which the said plants could be cut by the owners. The only prohibition is for Mango, Neem, Sal, Mahua and Khair plants. The said notification is annexed as annexure no.7 to the affidavit filed with the bail application. 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.
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- Manoj Tiwari 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.
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 :- 27.4.2023
Ravi Kant
