Allahabad High Court
Rahul Sharma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 19 July, 2023
Bench: Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:47344
Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 571 of 2023
Applicant :- Rahul Sharma
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
On 02.03.2023, after hearing learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State this court had passed the following order:
"Heard learned counsel the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/F.I.R No. 19/2023, under Sections 147, 323, 427, 435, 504, 506, 188, 268, 436, 34 of I.P.C. and Section 15 of Environment Protection Act, Rule 5/6 of Noise Pollution Control Rule, 2000 and Section 7 of C.L.A. , P.S. Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, applicant happens to be the owner of the Hotel Milano and Cate. The F.I.R. does not disclose any offence so as to invoke Section 436 I.P.C. There is difference in burning the house and burning the car. He submits that alleged CCTV footage in the F.I.R. has also not been recovered by the Investigating Officer. He further submits that applicant has no criminal history and he will cooperate in the investigation.
Learned A.G.A though has opposed the bail prayer however, could not dispute these two facts stated by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to respondent No. 2.
Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted 15 days' time to file counter affidavit.
List on 10.04.2023.
On due consideration to the fact that applicant has no criminal antecedents, investigation is going on, applicant undertakes to cooperate in the investigation as also the judgment of Apex Court passed in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.
The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.
In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection. "
Although a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State the learned A.G.A. did not point out any violation of the conditions of interim anticipatory bail committed by the applicant. Nothing has come to light which may persuade this court to take a view, other than the view taken at the time of granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant.
In view of above, the interim order dated 02.03.2023 is made absolute and the anticipatory bail application is allowed.
.
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)
Order Date :- 19.7.2023
Ram.
