Allahabad High Court
Mahendra Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another 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. - 5959 of 2020
Applicant :- Mahendra Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ravi Sahu
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and 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 FIR No. 111 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
On 13.10.2020, the following order has been passed:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in light of the apprehension of the arrest of the applicant in Case Crime No.111 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat.
For the purposes of considering the prayer for grant of interim anticipatory bail, the Court notes that the causation of serious injuries is attributed to Sandeep Kumar. This is also reflected from the statement of the injured which has been recorded during the course of investigation. It is in that context that learned counsel states that general allegations have been levelled. The Court further notes that in view of the aforesaid, the case of the applicant stands on a different and distinct footing from Sandeep Kumar.
In view thereof and bearing in mind the submissions addressed in which the Court finds prima facie force, let the learned A.G.A. file a reply/obtain instructions in this matter within a period of four weeks.
List thereafter before the appropriate Court.
Accordingly and in the meanwhile, let the applicant- Mahendra Kumar involved in the aforesaid case crime number 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 concerned police station subject to the following conditions:-
(i) the applicant will join and participate in each and every aspect of "Investigation" and will lend full assistance to the Investigating Agency even with regard to "discovery of fact" if and when required so by the Investigating Agency or the concerned Court;
(ii) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(iii) 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 office;
(iv) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has a passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.
In case of default or breach of any of the af1orementioned conditions it shall be open to the Investigating Officer to file an appropriate application before this Court for cancellation of the interim anticipatory bail granted. "
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that to the best of his knowledge no charge sheet has been submitted till date. He further submits that from the statement of injured namely Ram Sanehi, the allegation of causing injury to Sandeep has not been attributed to the applicant. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant has also been touched upon at length. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has never misused the liberty as granted to him by the earlier order of the co-ordinate bench of this court. 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.
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- Mahendra Kumar 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
