Allahabad High Court
Kalloo vs State Of U.P. on 1 February, 2023
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 19633 of 2021
Applicant :- Kalloo
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bhaju Ram Pprasad Sharma,Arvind Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Complaint Case No. 1020 of 2021, under Section 4/21 Mines and Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, Police Station-Sonauli, District-Maharajganj, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
On 17.02.2022, the following order was passed:-
"Learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State are present.
Learned A.G.A. seeks further time to obtain instructions in the matter.
It has been pointed out that earlier also time was sought by learned AGA to obtain instructions.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the present case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Learned counsel has further submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against him so far. It was further submitted that in case, applicant is arrested by the police, the very purpose of filing this application for anticipatory bail would frustrate and thus, he may be granted interim protection till the next date fixed in the matter.
In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant Kalloo in complaint case no. 1020 of 2021, under Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals Act and Section 3/57/70 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, police station Sonauli, district Maharajganj till the next date fixed in the matter.
Put up as fresh on 14.03.2022. "
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above mentioned complaint case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He further submits that charge sheet has not been filed till date and investigation is still going on. The applicant has always co-operated in the investigation and has not misused the liberty of aforesaid interim anticipatory bail, which was granted to him on 17.02.2020 by coordinate Bench of this Court, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. He further submits that applicant has no criminal history. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegation made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon length. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has cooperated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
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 applicant.
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.
In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.
Let the accused-applicant - Kalloo be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime 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 applicant.
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 v. 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 him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 1.2.2023
Ashish Pd.
