Allahabad High Court
Prem Prakash Sharma And 2 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:173996
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8601 of 2023
Applicant :- Prem Prakash Sharma And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Desh Ratan Chaudhary,Siddharth Chaudhary
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Devesh Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Desh Ratan Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Kandap Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Devesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Nitesh Kumar Srivastava, 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. 2305 of 2010 (Shiv Kumar Sharma vs. Ashok Kumar & Others), registered under Sections 147, 323, 392, 506 I.P.C. at Police Station- Quarsi, District- Aligarh with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the complaint case was filed by the informant, who happens to be an Advocate who used to do pairvi on behalf of his client Smt. Bhoori Devi in Misc. Case No.64 of 2005, under Sections 376, 377, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)(12) SC/ST Act, Police Station Gangiri, District Aligarh.
5. The applicants and other co-accused persons are stated to have intercepted the complainant/advocate alongwith his clerk Manoj Kumar on 8.12.2006 at about 09:30 a.m. when he was coming to Court. The applicants are stated to have fired at him which did not hit him. Subsequently, they are stated to have assaulted the complainant and his clerk and torn off their clothes.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel has stated that no injury has been sustained by any person. The instant complaint case is counterblast to several litigations pending between the parties. The son of the applicant no.2 is also an advocate practicing at civil court, Aligarh. The present complaint case has been instituted just to pressurize the applicants as the proceedings were stayed in all the cases. Learned counsel has stated that in the present case also the applicants had filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.16814 of 2007 which is pending before this Court and the proceedings were stayed. But in the meantime, the case was dismissed in default due to non-appearance of the counsel of the applicants, but at present the case is still alive after restoration and 12.9.2023 is fixed for hearing in it. The applicants have not misused the liberty granted earlier on and are ready to cooperate during trial.
7. Learned counsel has further stated that admittedly this is a case of no injury. Learned counsel has stated that the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated after the anticipatory bail application was filed at Sessions Court, Aligarh. 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.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the applicants themselves after getting stay order in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.16814 of 2007 are not arguing the matter there and have not come with clean hands.
9. 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.
10. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants- Prem Prakash Sharma, Kishan Kumar Singhal and Uma Shanker Sharma 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.
11. 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
Vikas
[Krishan Pahal, J.]
