Allahabad High Court
Amandeep Alias Manoj vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 3 August, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:155517
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7959 of 2023
Applicant :- Amandeep Alias Manoj
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. As per office report, notice has been served to the informant on 20.07.2023.
3. Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
4. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Complaint Case No.363 of 2022, registered under Section 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act at Police Station- Kotwali Dehat Saharanpur, District Saharanpur with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have raped the minor daughter of the informant on 23.12.2021.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The application was moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the informant and the same was treated as a complaint case and subsequent to it, the statement of the victim and the informant have been recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and the applicant has been summoned by the court concerned. Learned counsel has further stated that there is larger racket of one Advocate Mohd. Faizal as he had instituted two more cases against the applicant. One is under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and another is under Section 302 I.P.C. The said case of Negotiable Instrument Act is pending as Case No.77239 of 2021 at Saharanpur and subsequent to it, an FIR was instituted under Section 307 I.P.C. at FIR No.153 of 2022 on an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the informant Mohd. Faizal.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed on the report of the police station which was called by the ACJM- II, Saharanpur, whereby it is categorically indicated that the informant used to institute frivolous cases against the applicant and the matter is between the advocate and his clerk and all the cases are false. Learned counsel has further stated that all the case have been instituted by moving application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or directly as complaint case. The schemer behind all these FIRs' is one and the same person Mohd. Faizal. The said criminal history of the applicant stands explained. He is not a previous convict. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant-Amandeep Alias Manoj 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 concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
11. 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 :- 3.8.2023
Ravi Kant
