Allahabad High Court
Rajkumar And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 24 August, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:171027
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9190 of 2023
Applicant :- Rajkumar And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Bhupendra Kuamr Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, 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 applicants in S.T. No.07 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 267 of 2018, registered under Sections 304, 323, 504 I.P.C. at Police Station- Kiratpur, District- Bijnor with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicants alongwith co-accused persons Rajesh and Bholu are stated to have assaulted the two sons of the informant and one nephew Bipin on 26.8.2018 at about 09:00 p.m., thereby causing injuries to them. An N.C.R. was instituted the same day at the police station but subsequent to it another person Madan is stated to have expired due to the injuries sustained in the said incident, although his name was not mentioned in the said N.C.R.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. The FIR was instituted after a delay of about 10 days and it mentions that inadvertently the informant could not mention the name of the deceased person Madan in the said N.C.R. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicants were exonerated by the police and closure report was filed with respect to them but they have been summoned by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Bijnor vide order dated 3.1.2020 by invoking power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel has stated that the applicants had challenged the summoning order before this Court and were granted interim protection vide order dated 28.8.2020 passed in Criminal Revision Defective No.282 of 2020, which is still pending. Learned counsel has stated that in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and Another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC 299 the said interim protection stood vacated, as such coercive measures have been taken against the applicants.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants has further stated that the applicants had not misused the opportunity granted earlier on. There is every likelihood of success of the criminal revision filed before this Court, which is still pending. The applicants have no criminal history to their credit. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest. Learned counsel has stated that the applicants undertake that they have co-operated in the investigation and are ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
7. 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 applicants.
8. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicants are 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 applicants 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 applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants- Rajkumar and Monu be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i). that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii). that 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 or tamper with the evidence;
(iii). that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
(v). that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(vi). that the applicants 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 below 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.
Order Date :- 24.8.2023
Vikas
[Krishan Pahal, J.]
