Allahabad High Court
Arun Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 17 August, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:165092
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8869 of 2023
Applicant :- Arun Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Dubey,Krishna Kant Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Krishna Kant Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rahul Singh Dahiya, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Sunil Kumar, 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.111 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 307 IPC at Police Station- Hafijpur, District Hapur with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, on 22.06.2023 at about 6:30 p.m., the applicant alongwith two other co-accused persons, namely, Sanjeev and Praveen, are stated to have assulted the informant and his brother Kapil and one Yash Tewatiya with spade (fawda), thereby causing grievous injuries to them.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as the injured person met with an accident as their tractor turned turtle and the injury sustained cannot be assigned to the applicant and other co-accused persons. Learned counsel has further stated that the matter has been settled between the parties as there are affidavit filed by the informant and the injured person before the S.P., Hapur indicating towards the said fact that the injury was sustained in an accident. There is no possibility of conviction in the present case. 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.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but have not disputed the said fact of compromise entered into between the parties.
7. 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.
8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Arun 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.
9. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
Order Date :- 17.8.2023
Ravi Kant
(Krishan Pahal, J.)
