Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar Sharma vs State Of U.P. on 22 December, 2023
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:242667
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13361 of 2023
Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Sharma
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit has been filed today, is taken on record.
2. Heard Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant 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 Case Crime No.C-05 of 2006, under Sections 419, 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Mughalsarai, District Chandauli.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant in fact no such incident has taken place as alleged in the impugned FIR, which has been lodged through an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant is bonafide purchaser of the sale deed dated 01.08.2005. The matter is purely civil in nature. A suit for cancellation of sale deed has already been filed before the court below, which is still pending. Charge sheet has already been submitted, which was challenged by the applicant and other co-accused persons by filing Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.2690 of 2007 in which the court vide order dated 12.02.2007 granted interim protection, which was later on dismissed in default and against which a recall application has also been filed, which is still pending in the meantime the court below taken the cognizance. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 8 of the affidavit. He further submits that there is apprehension of imminent arrest of the applicant and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.
5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.
6. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is 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 applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
7. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant-Manoj Kumar Sharma, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial 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 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
(ii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(iii) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(iv) 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 applicant.
(v) In case, the applicant 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 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 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 applicant.
9. Perusal of record shows that the matter is pending since 2005, therefore, the court below is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case within six months from today from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is further directed that court below shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment either of the parties.
10. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 22.12.2023
Ajeet
