Allahabad High Court
Krishandhari Gupta And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 May, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4936 of 2023
Applicant :- Krishandhari Gupta And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Dheeraj Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Javed Alam, Advocate holding brief of Sri Dheeraj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, 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.61 of 2023, registered under Sections 147, 420, 323, 504, 506, 452 and 427 I.P.C. at Police Station Kaudhiyara, District Prayagraj with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicants are stated to have entered into an agreement to sale with the husband of the informant in connivance with other co-accused persons by intoxicating him and had under valued the said property.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The wife of applicant no.1 had instituted a civil suit for the specific performance of the said agreement to sale at Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sharki, Allahabad on 28.11.2022 as Suit No.5186 of 2022. The FIR has been instituted subsequent to the said institution of suit for specific performance. There is nothing on record to suggest that the wife of applicant no.1 had entered into the said agreement with the husband of the informant in an inebriated state.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants have no criminal history to their credit. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants- Krishandhari Gupta, Brijesh Gupta and Karan Gupta be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (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.
10. 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 :- 2.5.2023
Vikas
