Allahabad High Court
Shreepal Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 October, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:191771
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10698 of 2023
Applicant :- Shreepal Singh And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Abhinav Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Israr,Raj Narayan
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Shri Raj Narayan, learned counsel for the informant.
2. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.188 of 2015, under Sections 323, 379, 494, 504, 506 and 120B IPC, Act, P.S.- Thathia, District- Kannauj.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant no.2 is the husband of opposite party no.2. Entire family of the applicants have been implicated. Father-in-law of opposite party no.2, who is aged about 80 years suffering from several old disease, has also been implicated. He has further submitted that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 09.03.2015 whereas the impugned FIR has been lodged through an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 27.05.2015 i.e. two and half months of the alleged incident for which no plausible explanation has been mentioned. He has further submitted that the opposite party no.2 has earlier lodged an FIR under Section 498-A IPC through an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in which the applicants were acquitted. He has further submitted that the wife of applicant no.2 has also filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance against the applicant no.2 in which the court below has awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.1000 to the wife and Rs.300 per month each for daughter and son.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that as per allegation, the applicants and father-in-law of opposite party no.2 have committed rape upon her in presence of entire family, which is highly improbable. The opposite party no.2 is habitual in lodging the FIR as well as complaint one by one just to harass and pressurize the applicants for compromise. He has further submitted that earlier after filing of charge sheet, the applicant has approached before this Court by filing Application u/s 482 No.9221 of 2017 and a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.03.2017 has granted stay order in favour of the applicants. Later on the said interim order was vacated and court has issued NBW against the applicants in view of law laid down in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and anther vs. C.B.I.
5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants but could not dispute the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicants.
6. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicants, 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 applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
7. In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants- Shreepal Singh and Anil 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 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
(ii) The applicants shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(iii) The applicants shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(iv) The applicants 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 applicants.
(v) In case, the applicants 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.
(vi) The applicants 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 applicants.
9. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands allowed.
Order Date :- 5.10.2023
A. Prajapati
