Allahabad High Court
Gayarasi Devi @ Gyasa Devi And 3 ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 July, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:147966
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8241 of 2023
Applicant :- Gayarasi Devi @ Gyasa Devi And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmala Yadav,Sukesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Sukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Shakil Ahmad, 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 Case Crime No.267 of 2021, registered under Sections 407, 447 I.P.C. and 3 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, at Police Station- Tirwa, District Kannauj with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that admittedly the applicants were enlarged on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial vide order dated 4.1.2022 of this Court under Sections 379, 447 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.20367 of 2021, but the final report (charge-sheet) has been submitted a bit differently, i.e., under Sections 407, 447 I.P.C. and 3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, as such the applicants had applied for anticipatory bail before the court concerned and it was rejected. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicants have not misused the said liberty granted to them earlier on. 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 has stated that the applicants undertake 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.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed much reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court passed in case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in 2016 (1) SCC (Cri) 240 and Manoj Suresh Jadhav & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra, reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3428, wherein the applicant therein was enlarged on anticipatory bail in the added sections U/S 438 Cr.P.C. after being enlarged on regular bail U/S 439 Cr.P.C.
6. 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.
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 and the aforesaid case law produced by learned counsel for 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- Gayarasi Devi @ Gyasa Devi, Sant Kumar, Anil Kumar and Sunil Kumar be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal 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 concerned 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 :- 25.7.2023
Vikas
