Allahabad High Court
Aushan Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 December, 2023
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:235149
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13443 of 2023
Applicant :- Aushan Singh And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Raj Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ansar Ahmad,Sandhya Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard Sri Brij Raj Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Ms. Sandhya Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the material available on record.
2. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.650 of 2023, under Section 304 I.P.C., P.S.- Kishni, District- Mainpuri.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. He submitted that the FIR is delayed about 2 and half months. Learned counsel for the applicant claims parity with the co-accused, namely, Vishram Singh and Devki, who have has been granted interim anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 1.12.2023 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.12556 of 2023. The applicants are having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 18 of the affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that applicants have apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicants are released on anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants but could not dispute the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants.
5. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicants, 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.
6. In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants- Aushan Singh and Rubi Yadav, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail 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 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.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The applicants shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(iv) The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(v) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants.
(vi) In case, the applicants 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.
(vii) 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 their 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 stands allowed.
Order Date :- 12.12.2023
Krishna*
