Allahabad High Court
Anwar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 May, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:105120
Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8457 of 2022
Appellant :- Anwar
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Anwar Hussain
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
List has been revised.
Notices were issued to the opposite party no.2 by the order dated 12.4.2023.
As per office report dated 12.5.2023 notice on opposite party no.2 has been served personally, but no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 to oppose this appeal.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant; learned AGA for opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record.
Instant criminal appeal under Section 14(A)(2) has been preferred against order dated 28.09.2022 passed by Court of Special Judge, (SC/ST P.A. Act), Moradabad whereby anticipatory bail application moved by the appellant has been rejected being non -maintainable in terms of Section 18 SC/ST P.A. Act, 1989, in Session Trial No. 406 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 407 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 153A, 295, 323, 504, 506, 352 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST P.A. Act and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S.- Bhojpur, District- Moradabad.
The appellant was enlarged on interim anticipatory bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.4.2023. No one has turned up to oppose the Appeal. For the reasons given in the earlier order dated 12.4.2023, the interim bail granted to the appellant is regularized.
Order of rejection of anticipatory bail application of court below dated 28.9.2022 is set aside.
Let appellant, Anwar, shall continue on anticipatory bail on same personal bond and two reliable sureties as per earlier order dated 12.4.2023 on the following conditions:
1. The appellant shall not leave the country during the pendency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
2. The appellant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
3. That the appellant 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 to any police officer;
4. The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 appellant.
5. In case, the appellant 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.
6. The appellant 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 his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt. Advocate/concerned court is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the appellant.
The criminal appeal is allowed.
Order Date :- 15.5.2023
Ruchi Agrahari
