Allahabad High Court
Ram Pratap Pandey And 2 Others 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:171017
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12331 of 2022
Applicant :- Ram Pratap Pandey And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Saumitra Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. Heard Sri Saumitra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Varun Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material available on record.
2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 128A of 1999, under Sections 420, 468, 471 & 406 of IPC, Police Station Chhatta, District Agra, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
3. As per prosecution story, the applicant no.1 is stated to be the adhoc employee at Tehsil Sadar, Agra and the other applicants are the office bearers of the same. The applicants in collusion with other co-accused persons are stated to have apprehended the informant on him having defaulted to pay the loan amount and as such, locked him up at Tehsil and after getting deposited Rs.5,000/- released him. Subsequent to it, the FIR has been instituted against the applicants and other co-accused persons. After thorough investigation, the closure report was filed and the same was accepted by the CJM, Agra vide order dated 22.02.2002. Subsequent to it, a criminal revision was preferred by the informant and the same was allowed and the matter was sent for re-hearing and pass an order on merits and, as such, the applicants have been summoned vide order dated 05.12.2012.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that they are maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and have apprehension of their arrest. They have nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant has filed a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court and the proceedings were stayed in it but the same has been vacated in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. and Another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2018 (16) SCC 299. Learned counsel has also stated that the applicants are the government officials and they are no likelihood of absconding them.
5. 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. It is further submitted that the applicants have no criminal history. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed, they will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.
6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants and also the fact that the applicants have no criminal history.
7. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98", the applicants are entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.
8. Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed.
9. In the event of arrest of the applicants, Ram Pratap Pandey, Jeetlal Saini and Murari Lal Sharma involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-
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 him 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 previous permission of the court;
iv. that 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 are exempted;
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicants.
11. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
Order Date :- 24.8.2023
Siddhant
