Allahabad High Court
Sonu@ Son Prakash vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 December, 2023
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:238631
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13971 of 2023
Applicant :- Sonu@ Son Prakash
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Devesh Kumar Shukla,Dharmesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Mr. Saurabh Srivastava, Advocate has filed his vakatnama on behalf of informant today, which is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
3. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Complaint Case No. 2688 of 2019, under Sections 452,376-D, 323, 506 IPC, P.S. Tappal, District Aigarh, till conclusion of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the FIR of the alleged incident was registered on 8.3.2019 whereas the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place on 4.8.2018 and after registration of the FIR, investigation ensued and after conclusion of the investigation submitted final report in favour of the applicant and other co accused persons against which opposite party no. 2 filed protest petition which has been treated as complaint and applicant has been summoned after statement of witnesses. It is contended that there is no credible evidence against him. The applicant undertakes to co-operate during proceedings before the Court below and trial and he would appear as and when required by the Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during proceedings before the Court below and would obey all conditions of bail.It is further submitted that the victim is 31 years married lady and even the independent witnesses have clearly stated that there was some business dispute between the applicants and husband of the opposite party no.2 and the opposite party no.2 at behest of her husband lodged the present FIR against the applicants.
5. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.
6. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1. The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
7. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed.
8. Let the accused-applicant Sonu @ Son Prakash be released forthwith in the aforesaid complaint case on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. The applicant shall not leave India during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
2. The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.
3. That 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
4. 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 applicants.
5. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the trial Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1.
6. 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 them in accordance with law."
9. With the aforesaid directions, this application stands disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 16.12.2023
RavindraKSingh
