Allahabad High Court
Pratap Yadav @ Patalu vs State Of U.P. on 17 January, 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. - 4606 of 2020
Applicant :- Pratap Yadav @ Patalu
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Tripathi,Keshari Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard SriDeepak Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, 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. 168 of 2020, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506 IPC, Police Station - Shivpur, District - Varanasi with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
On 25.08.2020, the following order has been passed:-
"Heard Shri Deepak Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA and perused the record.
A case of special circumstances to file this anticipatory bail application directly before this Court has been made out as due to COVID-19 pandemic District Court at Varanasi, is not working on regular basis.
Shri Deepak Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the sale deed-in-question was executed way back in the year 2011 and thereafter, the name of the first informant was also mutated in the revenue records. It is further submitted that FIR has been lodged by the first informant only when the applicant objected the first informant when he encroached the land of the applicant, beyond the lands mentioned in the sale deed. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false and fabricated. Applicant is innocent person, having no criminal history and have apprehension of imminent arrest and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would cooperate with investigation.
Learned A.G.A. appearing for State, however, opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail and seeks time to file objection.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, reasonable apprehension of arrest, taking into consideration the gravity and nature of accusation, there being no criminal antecedents of the applicant and there being no possibility of his fleeing from justice, this Court is of the view that at this stage, prima facie case for exercising its discretionary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is made out in favour of applicants.
Learned Additional Government Advocate prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Learned A.G.A. shall communicate this order to the investigating officer of the case and Superintendent of Police concerned. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within three weeks thereafter.
List this case on 20.10.2020 before appropriate Bench.
Till the next date of listing, applicant - Pratap Yadav @ Patalu involved in Case Crime No.168 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506, 406 IPC, Police Station - Shivpur, District - Varanasi, shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on his 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:
The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
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 or tamper with the evidence;
The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;
In default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
It is made clear that in case certified copy of this order is not issued due to COVID-19 pandemic, the copy of order downloaded by the official website of the Allahabad High Court shall be acted upon."
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the investigation is going on and the applicant has never misused the liberty as granted by the Court. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant has also been touched upon at length. He further submits that the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated 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.
From the perusal of records, it is clear that in spite of time granted to learned AGA no counter affidavit has been filed till date. From the perusal of FIR as well as record, it is clear that the first information report has been lodged after nine years from the date of execution of sale deed. When the applicant has objected the first informant not to encroach upon the land as mentioned in the sale deed, the present case has been lodged.
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 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 applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Pratap Yadav @ Patalu be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
2. 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
3. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
4. that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
5. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
6. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
7. that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
Order Date :- 17.1.2023
Arti
