Raisuddin And Another vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 2754 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 77
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2406 of 2020
 

 
Applicant :- Raisuddin And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pranesh Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

Heard Mr. Pranesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Akhilesh Kumar 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.73 of 2020, under Sections 353, 332, 427 I.P.C., Police Station-Sahibabad, District-Ghaziabad, with a prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on anticipatory bail.

On 10.06.2020, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicants, the following order was passed:-

"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicants after rejecting their anticipatory bail application by the order dated 26.2.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, court No. 1, Ghaziabad seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 73 of 2020, under Sections 353, 332 and 427 IPC, Police Station Sahibabad, district Ghaziabad during the pendency of the investigation.

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that on 13.1.2020 F.I.R. was lodged by Sarvesh Kumar, Junior Engineer against the applicants, Raisuddin and Sabir and 3-4 unknown persons for the offence under Sections 353, 332 and 427 IPC making allegation inter alia that the applicants were involved in committing theft of electricity. When officers of the electricity department went there for checking they were assaulted by the applicants. It is also submitted that applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. The F.I.R. was challenged by the son of applicant No. 1 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 30471 of 2018, in which interim protection was granted to him directing that he shall not be arrested in above mentioned case till the credible evidence is collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation. It is also submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged after long delay of seventeen hours and the allegations are false and fabricated. No lineman was received any injury, as alleged in the F.I.R., but subsequently they have succeeded in procuring forged report with a view to implicate the applicant. The maximum punishment for the aforesaid offence is three years. Lastly, it is submitted that he has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicants are released on bail, they would not misuse the liberty and would cooperate with the investigation.

Learned Additional Government Advocate, who has accepted notice of this case on behalf of State of U.P. has opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicants.

Looking to the facts of the case, reasonable apprehension of arrest, taking into consideration the gravity and nature of accusation and there being no possibility of their fleeing from justice, this Court is of the view that at this stage prima facie case for exercising its discretionary power under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure is made out in favour of applicants.

Learned Additional Government Advocate prays for and is granted six 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 after nine weeks before the appropriate Bench.

Till the next date of listing, in the event of arrest of the applicants Raisuddin and Sabir, involved in the aforesaid case shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on their 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:-

(1)The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(2)The applicants 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 or tamper with the evidence;

(3)The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

(4) In default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officers shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

It is made clear that in case certified coy of the order is not issued due to COVID-19 pandamic, the copy of order downloaded by the official website of the Allahabad High Court shall be acted upon.

The matter shall not be treated as tied up or part heard to this Bench."

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case with the allegations that they have committed theft, its a case where no injury have been sustained by anyone. He further submits that applicants have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. The applicants have always co-operated in the investigation and have not misused the liberty of aforesaid interim anticipatory bail, which was granted to them on 10.06.2020 by co-ordinate Bench of this Court till submission of charge sheet dated 18.08.2020, therefore, the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. He further submits that applicants will be co-operating in the trial without seeking any unnecessary adjournments. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegation made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they have cooperated in the investigation and are ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

charge sheet

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 applicants.

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicants are 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 applicants is allowed.

Let the accused-applicants:-Raisuddin and Sabir 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 applicants shall not leave India during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

2. The applicants shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.

3. That the applicants 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 applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants.

5. In case, the applicants misuse 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 applicants 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 them in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 27.1.2023

Rahul.