Allahabad High Court
Sardar Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 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. - 1632 of 2023
Applicant :- Sardar Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Tomar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Srivastava, 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 Case Crime No. 70 of 2021, under Section 420 IPC, Police Station-Gonda, District-Aligarh, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court after getting his anticipatory bail rejected from the court of sessions vide order dated 24.1.2023.
Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that earlier anticipatory bail was granted by the court below itself on 25.3.2021. He further submits that chargesheet has been submitted in the matter. The applicant fairly cooperated in the investigation and never misused the liberty as granted by order dated 25.3.2021. It is next contended that the allegations are with respect to obtaining loan on the basis of forged documents and the applicant did not commit any offence, rather he applied for loan in accordance with law. He next submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He further contended that the applicant has no criminal antecedent to his credit and never undergone any imprisonment after conviction by any court of law in relation to any cognizable offence previously. An assurance was also advanced on behalf of the applicant that he would render all requisite cooperation and assistance in the process of law and undertakes to face the trial without seeking any unnecessary adjournment. This Court has granted anticipatory bail to co-accused Radha Charan by the order of the date passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 1622 of 2023.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application by mentioning that though the applicant has got no criminal antecedent but there is nothing on record to satisfy that he may be arrested. He further submits that in view of the seriousness of the allegations, the applicant is not entitled for any relaxation from this Court.
After the close scrutiny of Section 438 Cr.P.C. and its relevant clauses, the Court is satisfied that the applicant has made out the case for anticipatory bail protecting the liberty of applicant in connection with aforesaid case crime pending trial.
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 ? Sardar Singh 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. 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;
2. The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned trial court forthwith.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
It is clarified that observations made in this order, at this stage, are limited for the purpose of determination of this anticipatory bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusion according to law.
Order Date :- 14.2.2023
DS
