Allahabad High Court
Suaib vs State Of U.P. on 29 August, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:174252
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9412 of 2023
Applicant :- Suaib
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sudarshan Singh, Anurag Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard 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 Complaint Case No.1122 of 2022 (old no.474 of 2018), under Section 376 IPC, Police Station Nakhasa, District Sambhal.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant. The applicant is father-in-law aged about 60 years above and suffering from several old disease. The husband of the complaint has given triple talaq to the complainant, due to this reason, the applicant being father-in-law has been implicated. The complainant has lodged FIR being case crime no.474 of 2017 in which after investigation final report was submitted. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed protest petition, which was treated as complaint case and the learned Magistrate has summoned the applicant vide summoning order dated 28.09.2022. He further submits that the complainant is habitual to file criminal cases against her in-laws, as she has lodged FIR being Case Crime No.122 of 2018 under Section 376 IPC against one Mohd Naim @ Chhal, who is relative of the applicant, in which final report was also submitted. He further submits that one another FIR has also been lodged by real brother of the complaint against elder son of applicant in which final report has also been submitted. He further submits that the complainant has also lodged an FIR against mediator. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 21 of the affidavit. He further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.
4. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.
5. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he 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.
6. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant-Suaib, involved in the aforesaid complaint case 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.
7. 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.
8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is allowed.
Order Date :- 29.8.2023
Ajeet
