Allahabad High Court
Ashok Kumar And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 August, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:173431
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8884 of 2023
Applicant :- Ashok Kumar And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sonu Malik
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
3. Heard Ms. Sonu Mali, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
4. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Special Case No.22 of 2016 (Sunita Devi vs. Pradeep and Others), registered under Section 395 IPC at Police Station- Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
5. As per prosecution story, on 20.01.2016 at about 9:00 a.m., the applicants and five other co-accused persons are stated to have assaulted the informant by barging into her house and are even stated to have hurled abuses on her.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. An application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the informant and was treated as a complaint case. The said application was moved even after a delay of six days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant was summoned vide order dated 06.08.2016, which is cryptic and without application of mind. 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. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicants. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes 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- Ashok Kumar, Meena Kumari, Vivek Kumar and Muktesh Kumar be released forthwith in the aforesaid special 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 concerned 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 :- 28.8.2023
Ravi Kant
(Krishan Pahal, J.)
