Allahabad High Court
Shadab And Another vs State Of U.P. on 29 August, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:174103
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8429 of 2023
Applicant :- Shadab And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Faisal Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
3. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 332 of 2011, under sections 420,467,468,471,323, 504,506 IPC, P.S. Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the FIR, false allegation has been levelled against the applicants. He further submits that allegation of cheating and forgery have been levelled against their father for having executed a sale deed in favour of opposite party no. 2 and subsequently another sale deed is executed on the name of other persons. Applicants are having no concern with the alleged crime. It is further submitted that no offence as alleged has been committed by the applicants. The applicants are having definite apprehension that they may be arrested by the police any time. It is further submitted that earlier applicants have approached this court by way of filing application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.25492 of 2012 challenging the charge sheet wherein interim protection was granted to the applicants vide order dated 14.09.2012 but lateron same was vacated in the light of Asian Resurfacing of Roads Agency Pvt Ltd and Another Vs Central Bureau of Investigation [AIR 2018 SC 2039], hence this application after rejection of anticipatory bail by the court below. It is further submitted that no NBW has been issued till date as is reflected from the latest order sheet annexed with the supplementary affidavit.
5. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said facts. However, it is submitted that only summons have been issued against the applicants.
6. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, they are 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 applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
7. In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants Shadab and Shahnawaz involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on each of them 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:-
(1) The applicants shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation;
(2) 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; and
(3) The applicants shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(4) The applicants shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(5) The applicants 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.
(6) In case, the applicants misuse 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.
(7) The applicants 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.
8. 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 applicants.
9. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.8.2023
RavindraKSingh
