Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 August, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:173932
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9398 of 2023
Applicant :- Manoj Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Vishal Mishra,Mohit Singh,Shikhar Neelkanth
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard Mr. Mohit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.370 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station New Agra, District Agra.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant in fact no such incident has taken place as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. It is a case of no injury. The applicant is the husband of opposite party no.2. The entire family members of the applicant has been implicated in the present case. The applicant has never demanded for dowry nor any cruelty has been committed by the applicant. He further submits that during investigation, all the accused persons except the applicant has been exonerated and charge sheet has been submitted only against the applicant. He further submits that the applicant has fully cooperated in the investigation in compliance of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. He further submits that after investigation, the investigating officer has submitted charge sheet against the applicant and the court below has taken cognizance in a routine manner. He further submits that there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant, hence, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that all the offences are punishable for less than seven years, therefore, applicant is entitled to bail in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2021) 10 SCC 773. Reliance is also placed on para 14 of a recent judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand and another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 892 and Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2022) 1 SCC 676.
5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant and has submitted that there are sufficient evidence against the applicant and he has been charge sheeted for serious offenes, however, he conceded that all the offences for which he has been charge-sheeted, are punishable for less than seven years.
6. In a recent judgment in the case of Md. Asfak Alam (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that once the charge sheet was filed and there was no impediment, at least on the part of the accused, the Court having regard to the nature of the offences, the allegations and the maximum sentence of the offences they were likely to carry out to have granted the bail, as a matter of course. The Court has further stated that the Court did not do so but mechanically rejected and virtually, to rub salt in the wound directed the appellant to surrender and seek regular bail before the trial court, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the High Court fell into error in adopting such a casual approach. The impugned order of rejecting the bail and directed the appellant to surrender and later seek bail, therefore, cannot stand and is hereby set aside.
7. It is not in dispute that upon conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet is filed only against the applicant for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 504 and Section 3/4 IPC. It is also not in dispute that notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. was given to the applicant and applicant had fully complied with the terms of the notice and cooperated in the investigation.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, considering the fact that all the offences are punishable for less than seven years and in the light of the ratio laid down in the case of Mohd. Asfak Alam (supra), I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
9. Accordingly, the present anticipatory application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
10. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant-Manoj Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant 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.
(ii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(iii) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.
(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.
11. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
12. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is allowed.
Order Date :- 29.8.2023
Ajeet
