Allahabad High Court
Rahul Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 August, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:158782
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8859 of 2023
Applicant :- Rahul Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sujeet Kumar Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Sujeet Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Shakil Ahmad, 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.0246 of 2023, registered under Section 306 IPC at Police Station- Kandhla, District Shamli with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to be having illicit relationship with co-accused person Pooja Saini, who happens to be the wife of one Manoj Saini, and the co-accused person is stated to have threatened the deceased person that she shall foist false case of rape against him, thereby leading him to commit suicide, as such his dead body was found hanging to a tree by the informant and other members on 12.06.2023 at about 1:00 AM.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations against the applicant are vague. No ingredients of Section 306 I.P.C. or Section 107 I.P.C. are attracted as there is no overt act assigned to the applicant to abet the deceased person to commit suicide. Learned counsel has further stated that the name of the applicant has come up in the statement of co-accused person who has stated that the applicant has asked her to lead the deceased person to death.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that even the post-mortem examination report does not indicate the cause of death to be asphyxia as a result of hanging although a ligature mark has been observed on his neck. The cause of death could not be ascertained, as such viscera was preserved. 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.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the applicant was hand in glove with the co-accused person Pooja Saini, as such he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
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- Rahul Kumar 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 concerned 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 :- 8.8.2023
Ravi Kant
