Allahabad High Court
Shweta Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 August, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:158893
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7140 of 2023
Applicant :- Shweta Singh And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.161 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Shivapur, District Varanasi.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case, in fact, no such incident has taken place. The applicants have never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant no.1 has purchased a land of Arazi No.941 area 0.062 1/2 hectare from one Jung Bahadur vide sale deed dated 04.12.2006 and subsequently the applicant no.1 has executed a sale deed on 01.06.2018 and 26.06.2018 in favour of Smt. Sandhya and Smt. Shwati Gupta for area 848 square feet each and handed over the possession to them and after execution of sale deed, their names have been mutated in the revenue record. He further submits that due to greed and dishonesty, the complainant Sandhya tried to encroach the land of arazi no.946 adjacent to arazi no.941, which caused the dispute of demarcation between the complainant Sandhya and the owner of Arazi No.946 for which one Vijay Shankar Pandey has filed a original suit no.358 of 2018 against the complainant and applicant no.1, which is still pending. He further submits that investigation is going on and till date no charge sheet has been filed. The dispute is purely civil in nature but has given criminal colour. Prima facie no alleged offence is made out against the applicants. He further submits that applicants have apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, the applicants are released on anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.
4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.
5. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicants, they are directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
6. In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants-Shweta Singh and Ravindra Kumar Singh, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicants shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation;
(ii) The applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and
(iii) The applicants shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(iv) The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(v) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicants.
(vi) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
(vii) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.
7. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.
8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 8.8.2023
Ajeet
