Allahabad High Court
Nitesh Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. on 10 October, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:194631
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10341 of 2023
Applicant :- Nitesh Kumar And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Singh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhirendra Kumar Verma,Renu Swarnkar
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard Mr. Dileep Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.378 of 2023, under Sections 147, 307, 325 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case, in fact, no such incident has taken place. The applicants have never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Initially the impugned FIR has been lodged against four accused persons including the applicants. Earlier the applicants have lodged the FIR against the informant side being Case Crime No.341 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 384, 504 IPC and 3(1)(Dha) and 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act in which charge sheet has already been submitted. Due to this reason, as a counterblast, the impugned FIR has been lodged against the applicants. As per version of the FIR, on the fateful day, when the son of the informant went in a marriage party where the accused persons have committed maarpeet and thrown from the roof, as a result of which, he sustained injuries. He further submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged after three days of the alleged incident for which no plausible explanation has been mentioned. The injured has not assigned any role to the applicants. Specific role has been assigned to co-accused Tinku. No specific role has been assigned to the applicants. Prima facie no alleged offence is made out against the applicants. The applicants are having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 19 of the affidavit. He further submits that applicants have apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, the 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 vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants but could not dispute the aforesaid contentions raised 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 applicants 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-Nitesh Kumar and Shashi Kapoor @ Vasu, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial 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 misuse 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 them 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 applicants.
8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 10.10.2023
Ajeet
