Allahabad High Court
Mewa Ram And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 July, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:137607
Court No. - 72Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7355 of 2023
Applicant :- Mewa Ram And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Jaiswal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Vashistha
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Virendra Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri A.K. Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ajay Kumar Vashistha, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Anith Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Complaint Case No.1682 of 2017, registered under Sections 354-B, 323, 504, 506 IPC at Police Station- Marhara, District Etah with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicants alongwith other accused persons are stated to have assaulted the family members of the complainant and even outraged the modesty of the daughter-in-law of the complainant on 24.9.2016 at about 04:30 p.m.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the said complaint is delayed as the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed on 10.2.2017. Learned counsel has stated that it is mentioned that the applications to SSP were moved on 1.10.2016 and 8.2.2017 which are also delayed by seven days. The applicants have been summoned vide order dated 7.3.2018. Learned counsel has stated that the said complaint case is counterblast to the FIR dated 27.9.2016, registered as Case Crime No.380 of 2016 with respect to the offence committed on the same day. The present complaint case is misuse of process of the court. The delay in approaching the court has not been explained. The applicants have no criminal history to their credit. The applicant no.1 is 77 years old person and applicant no.3 is paralyzed. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they have co-operated 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.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants.
7. 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 applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants- Mewa Ram, Bhagwan Das and Mintu @ Mahendra Singh be released forthwith in the aforesaid complaint case (supra) 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 court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i). that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii). 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 or tamper with the evidence;
(iii). that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
(v). that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(vi). that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
9. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
[Krishan Pahal, J.]
Order Date :- 12.7.2023/ Vikas
