Allahabad High Court
Vijendra Prajapati And Another vs State Of U.P. on 13 December, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:236316
Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13152 of 2023
Applicant :- Vijendra Prajapati And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Goyal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Girish Kumar
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants - Vijendra Prajapati and Sanjay Kumar seeking anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No. 4824 of 2015, under Sections 323, 506, 406 IPC, Police Station Chatta, District Agra.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. It is further submitted that the applicant no.2 is the bonafide purchaser, who after making the requisite payment for consideration, has purchased the plot in dispute. It is also submitted that the applicant no.1 has absolutely no concern with the alleged crime. The whole prosecution story is false and frivolous. It is also submitted that the applicant no.2 is the real owner of the plot in question. It is also submitted that Civil Suit is already pending between the parties which has been filed by the complainant of this case and same is being contested by the applicants. It is further submitted that the dispute relates to purely of civil nature. Criminal history of the applicants has been explained sufficiently. No process under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC has been issued against the applicants and the applicants have not been declared absconder. In case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the applicants were well known to the fact that the complainant is the real owner of the plot in question and with a view to obtain wrongful gain he has purchased the plot in question which was already purchased by the complainant. The complainant was also assaulted by the present applicants and the injury report is also available on record.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. In this matter, it appears that the plot in question was sold by the Secretary of Sahkari Avas Samiti Limited, Agra in favour of Smt. Rama Devi on 26.11.1984 and subsequently the complainant alongwith Dilip Sharma purchased the said plot from Smt. Rama Devi and same was also purchased by the complainant from Dilip Sharma on 5.6.2012 and thereafter she came to know that a sale deed of the said land has been executed on 27.3.2014 by Sunil Kumar in favour of the applicant no.2. When the present applicants tried to take possession over the plot of the complainant, a criminal complaint was moved before the Court concerned wherein a summoning order was passed by the Court concerned on 2.4.2019 and the present applicants were summoned to face trial for the offence under Sections 323, 506 and 406 IPC. It also reveals that the complainant has received simple injuries. An application U/S 482 No. 30427 of 2019 was preferred by the applicants before this Court wherein an interim protection was granted to them vide order dated 26.8.2019 but however, subsequently same was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 17.10.2019.
7. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.
It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.
It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.
8. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that :
"11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170 CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173 CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87 CrPC that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.
12. Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170 CrPC, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."
9. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till the end of trial.
10. The application is allowed accordingly.
11. In the event of arrest of the applicants, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicants shall make themselves available before the Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the trial.
(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 him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.
(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.
12. In case of default of any of the conditions, the same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicants.
Order Date :- 13.12.2023
safi
