Allahabad High Court
Ajay Singh Teotia And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 August, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:171349
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8383 of 2023
Applicant :- Ajay Singh Teotia And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Singh Dahiya,Anshul Pathak,Purnendu Bajpai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manu Sharma,Rafiqa Anees Khan
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Rahul Singh Dahiya, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Manu Sharma, learned counsel for the informant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, 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 Complaint Case No. 1148 of 2020, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. at Police Station- Hapur Nagar, District- Hapur with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicants in collusion with other co-accused person is stated to have transferred the land of the informant fraudulently, who was minor at that time. The FIR was instituted on 27.6.2016 and after investigation the closure report was filed. The informant filed a protest petition and vide order dated 8.12.2017 of the C.J.M., Hapur the case was treated as complaint case and the applicants were summoned vide order dated 4.11.2020.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. The present case is misuse of process of the court. The applicants have cooperated during investigation and are being harassed by the present complaint case. The summoning order is cryptic one without application of mind. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant no.1 stands explained as he has been acquitted in it. The applicant no.2 has no criminal history to his 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.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants.
7. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties 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.
8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants- Ajay Singh Teotia and Babu Singh @ Baburam be released forthwith in the aforesaid complaint case (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.
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 :- 24.8.2023/ Vikas
[Krishan Pahal, J.]
