Allahabad High Court
Rahul Alias Gulshan Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. ... on 14 March, 2023
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 21
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 639 of 2023
Applicant :- Rahul Alias Gulshan Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Civil Sectt U.P. Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Gyanendra Pathak
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.26 of 2021 under sections 323, 308, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Rupaideeha, district Bahraich.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused Jiledar has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 24.2.2023 passed in CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. 484 of 2023. He seeks parity with the bail order of co-accused Jiledar.
It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that general allegation has been leveled against four persons for causing assault on injured. The victim in his statement has not even assigned any specific role to the applicant or any other accused persons. The injuries received by the injured are simple in nature. The applicant has no criminal antecedent. He undertakes to cooperate in the trial. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to enmity. No case for offence under section 308 I.P.C. is made out.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made by applicant's counsel, however, he does not dispute the fact that the charge sheet has been filed and the applicant has no criminal antecedent.
Considering the fact that general allegation has been made by the injured against the accused persons, no specific allegation has been assigned to the applicant, the applicant seeks parity with the bail order of co-accused Jiledar; the applicant has cooperated in the investigation and he further undertakes to cooperate in the trial, and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020) 5 SCC 1, subject to his cooperation in the trial.
In view of the above, the accused applicant is directed to surrender before trial court if he is summoned to face trial for offence in question after filing of the charge sheet. The accused applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail by the trial court on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, with the following conditions.
(i) The applicant 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or tamper with the evidence;
(ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;
Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.
It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
In view of the aforesaid, the anticipatory bail application is allowed.
Order Date :- 14.3.2023
Madhu
