Manmohan And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 35739 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Manmohan And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 December, 2023

Author: Samit Gopal

Bench: Samit Gopal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?
 
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:240937
 
Court No. - 69
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 14089 of 2023
 
Applicant :- Manmohan And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants- Manmohan and Jitendra, seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 349 of 2023, under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 307 I.P.C. and section 7 Criminal Amendment Act, Police Station Babugarh, District Hapur, during pendency of trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that identically placed co-accused Amarik, Manish, Neeshu @ Priyanshu and Babu @ Tushal have been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 13.12.2023 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 13755 of 2023 (Amarik and three others Versus State of U.P. and another) and co-accused Ganga Singh and Sudhir have been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 16.12.2023 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 13682 of 2023 (Ganga Singh and another Versus State of U.P. and another), copies of the same have produced before this Court which are taken on record. It is argued that the applicant no. 1 has no criminal history, whereas, applicant no. 2 was involved in one case under section 323/34, 504 I.P.C. in which he has been acquitted by the trial court vide order dated 28.05.2012 as stated in para 26 of the affidavit. It is argued that the applicants have been falsely implicated. The case of the applicants is at par with that co-accused who have been granted anticipatory bail by coordinate Benches of this Court.

4. Perused the orders granting anticipatory bail to the co-accused. The order granting anticipatory bail to co-accused Amarik, Manish, Neeshu @ Priyanshu and Babu @ Tushalare is as follows:

"1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Shrawan Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ravindra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No.349 of 2023 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 307 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act at Police Station- Babugarh, District Hapur with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

4. As per prosecution story, two parties were found involved in brick-batting, arsoning and fighting with each other by the police on 15.11.2023. It is alleged that the co-accused Sudhir is stated to have fired from the CMP at the police party which did not hit anybody.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. In the present case, there is no injury report to suggest that any person has sustained injuries. The allegations of firing are vague. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicants. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they have co-operated in the investigation and are ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants.

7. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicants are 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 applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants- Amarik, Manish, Neeshu @ Priyanshu and Babu @ Tushal be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) 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 court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i). that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii). that 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 or tamper with the evidence;

(iii). that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

(v). that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

(vi). that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

9. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial."

5. The order granting anticipatory bail to co-accused Ganga Singh and Sudhir is as follows:-

"1. Heard Sri Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Maan Singh, 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.349 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 307 I.P.C. & Section 7 Criminal Amendment Act, P.S.- Babugarh, District- Hapur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicants claims parity with the co-accused, namely, Amarik, Manish, Neeshu @ Priyanshu and Babu @ Tushal, who have has been granted interim anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.12.2023 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.13755 of 2023. The applicants are having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 17 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 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- Ganga Singh and Sudhir, 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 applicants.

8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands allowed."

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

7. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of accusation, the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

8. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Manmohan and Jitendra, involved in aforesaid case crime no. shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police office as and when required;

(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 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.

9. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

10. The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicants.

11. The applicants are directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

12. The anticipatory bail application is disposed of.

Order Date :- 19.12.2023

K.K. Maurya

(Samit Gopal,J.)