Allahabad High Court
Sunil Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 July, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:142213
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7699 of 2023
Applicant :- Sunil Kumar And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Pati Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard Sri Rakesh Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.4422 of 2005, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 392 I.P.C., P.S.- Kotwali, District- Jaunpur, during the pendency of investigation.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He submitted that the applicant no.1 is aged about 58 years and applicant no.2 is aged about 60 years and applicants are facing old age deceased. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that earlier the applicants have approached this Court preferring a revision bearing Criminal Revision No.63 of 2006 against the summoning order dated 25.11.2005, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and this Court vide order dated 06.01.2006 stayed the further proceedings of the aforesaid case, and thereafter, on 09.05.2012, the aforesaid criminal revision was dismissed, and on 19.01.2023, N.B.W. was issued against the applicant by the concerned learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the applicants are son of the co-accused Munni Devi who has already been granted anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1769 of 2023, vide order dated 25.04.2023, copy of the same is annexed as Annexure No.10 to the affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicants have no criminal history.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicants, they are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicants is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
5. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicants, they are directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
6. In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants- Sunil Kumar and Rupesh Kumar involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
(1) The applicants shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.
(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.
(3) The applicants shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(4) The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(5) 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.
(6) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
(7) 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 their bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.
7. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 18.7.2023
Krishna*
