Allahabad High Court
Arvind Kumar vs State Of U.P Through Secretary ... on 4 October, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?E-Court
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:190515
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10938 of 2023
Applicant :- Arvind Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Through Secretary (Home) And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Abha Pandey,Amit Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Sri Pushpendra Kumar Yadav, Advocate has file his Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2 today in the Court, the same is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Abha Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pushpendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the record.
3. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.127 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Balua, District- Chandauli.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The sale deed in question (dated 22.12.2012) was executed by father-in-law of the applicant, the applicant is only marginal witness in the sale deed in question, the applicant is neither the seller nor the purchaser of the sale deed. She submitted that against the sale deed, mother-in-law of the applicant has moved cancellation suit before the court below, the same is pending before the court below. She submitted that it is a civil dispute between the parties and the present case has been given criminal colour just to harass the applicants. She submitted that co-accused- Savita Devi has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 6.7.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.6302 of 2023, copy of the same is annexed as Annexure No.2 to the affidavit. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 14 of the affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.
5. Sri Pushpendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.
6. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
7. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Arvind Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.
(ii) 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 to any police officer.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(v) The applicant 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 applicant.
(vi) In case, the applicant 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.
(vii) The applicant 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 his in accordance with law.
8. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
9. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands allowed.
Order Date :- 4.10.2023
Krishna*
