Allahabad High Court
Deepak And Another vs State Of U.P. on 16 August, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:164552
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8994 of 2023
Applicant :- Deepak And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vimal Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ramanuj Tripathi
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants today in the Court, the same is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Vimal Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ashwani Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ramanuj Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the material available on record.
3. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.363 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 307, 324, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Iglas, District- Aligarh.
4. Initially an FIR was lodged by the complainant against eight persons including the present applicants alleging therein that on 15.05.2021 at about 11:30 hours the complainant alongwith his son- Pawan Kumar Iglas, while parking the bike inside his house, Srinivas, Surendra, K.K., Vijay, Rakesh, Harvansh, Jamuna and Deepak alongwith Fawda, Sariya, Lathi and Danda entered inside the house of the complainant and committed marpit. It is further alleged that when Ramprakash Suresh and Pawan Kumar came to save the complainant, the accused persons committed marpit with Ramprakash Suresh and Pawan Kumar. In the alleged incident, complainant side have sustained injuries.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the earlier the applicants have approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail whereas the same has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 9.8.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.14225 of 2021. He submitted that the applicants were named in the FIR but they were not charge sheeted. Being aggrieved a protest petition was filed by the informant which was dismissed against which the informant has filed a revision which too has been rejected vide order dated 11.05.2022. He submitted that the applicants were doing private job in Airport at Delhi and the applicants have no concern with the alleged incident. In the alleged incident four persons sustained injury. All injuries are found to be simple in nature except on injury which was advised for X-ray.
6. He further submitted that thereafter I.O. has obtained permission from the Magistrate for re-investigation of the matter and after permission matter was re-investigated and the learned Magistrate issued arrest warrant without mentioning date of issuing arrest warrant, then the applicants came to know about apprehension of arrest. He further submitted that as per ingrediants of Section 307 I.P.C., offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is not made out against the applicants as observed by the court below. The applicants are having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 25 of the affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that applicants have apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicants are released on anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that charge sheet was submitted on 22.09.2021 after order of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.14225 of 2021, vide order dated 09.08.2021 in which the applicants were named in the FIR and keeping in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicants, they are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicants is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
8. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is 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 applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
9. In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants- Deepak and K.K. @ Krishnakant, 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.
(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 misuses 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 his in accordance with law.
10. 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 applicant.
11. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 16.8.2023
Krishna*
