Allahabad High Court
Swaminath Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. on 11 October, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195789
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10903 of 2023
Applicant :- Swaminath Singh And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Digvijay Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard Mr. Digvijay Tiwari, 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.385 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Rasra, District Ballia.
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. At the time of alleged incident, neither the applicants were present on sport nor caused any injury to the injured. In the alleged incident, both side have sustained injuries for which the brother of the applicant no.1 has lodged an FIR against informant. The applicant no.1 is aged about 62 years and is a heart patient and taking treatment from Ballia Trauma Centre, copy of prescription is enclosed herewith as Annexure No.14 to the affidavit. He further submits that no specific role has been assigned to the applicants. Specific role for causing injury has been assigned to co-accused Surendra Singh @ Munna Singh. The applicants are having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 30 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.
5. After having very carefully examined, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the material brought on record, there is no justification for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant no.2. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant no.2 is hereby refused.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that a direction may be given to the court below to consider the bail application of the applicant no.2 in view of the judgment in the case Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.
7. Accordingly, it is provided that in case the applicant no.2 appears and surrenders before the court concerned and applies for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra).
8. So far as applicant no.1, who is aged about 62 years, is concerned, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant no.1, 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 no.1 shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
6. In the event of arrest, the applicant no.1 shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant no.1-Swaminath Singh involved in the aforesaid case 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 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.
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 is disposed of.
Order Date :- 11.10.2023
Ajeet
