Allahabad High Court
Lalit Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 3 August, 2023
Bench: Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:51684
Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 312 of 2023
Applicant :- Lalit Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Manjusha Kapil
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Hari Krishna Verma,Himanshu Tiwari
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. On 09.02.2023, after hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. this Court had passed the following interim order -
"The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.1283 of 2022 under sections 307, 504, 34, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, district Barabanki.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the first information report, it is alleged that due to misbehaviour with girls, an altercation had earlier taken place between the petitioner and the complainant. Due to this enmity, the accused persons stopped the complainant and his family members when they were returning home from work at about 9.30p.m. and with an intent to kill threw a bomb on them. However, the complainant and his family members were saved.
It is submitted that there is no injury to any person of bomb. Minor abrasion has been reported. As a matter of fact, at the time of the incident, the applicant was working in his office. The affidavit given by the guard/staff is on record as annexure No.3.
Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation. The applicant has no criminal antecedent.
Issue notice to respondent No.2.
Learned Addl. Government Advocate prays for and is allowed ten days' time to file counter affidavit,objections.
List on 17.3.2023.
Considering the above aspects of the matter, the fact there is no injury of bomb to any person, there is no independent witness of the incident, as also the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.
The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer /I.O./ S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.
In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection."
2. The State as well as the informant have filed their respective counter affidavits. Nothing has come to light which may persuade this Court to take a view, different from the view taken while passing the aforesaid order, nor the learned A.G.A. has pointed out violation of any of the conditions of interim anticipatory bail committed by the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant informs that the applicant has already furnished bail bonds in compliance of order dated 09.02.2023.
4. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the interim order dated 09.02.2023 is hereby made absolute and the application is allowed in terms of the aforesaid order.
Order Date :- 3.8.2023
Pradeep/-
