Allahabad High Court
Raj Kumar Seth And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 October, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:194092
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10842 of 2023
Applicant :- Raj Kumar Seth And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the material available on record.
2. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.73 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 380 I.P.C., P.S.- Bhelupur, District- Varanasi.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicants. He submitted that the applicants are husband and wife and they are tenant of the informant. There is some dispute regarding payment of rent of room and only for this reason, the present FIR has been lodged against the applicants including the sone of the applicants. He submitted that in the FIR, there is no date and time of the alleged incident is mentioned. He further submitted that the applicants have assured this Court that they will vacate the room of the informant. The applicants are having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 17 of the affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that applicants have apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicants are released on anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.
4. 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.
5. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicants, they are 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.
6. In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants- Raj Kumar Seth and Kiran Devi, involved in the aforesaid 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 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 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.
(iii) The applicants shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(iv) The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(v) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.
(vi) 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.
(vii) 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 their bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.
7. 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.
8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands allowed.
Order Date :- 9.10.2023
Krishna*
