Allahabad High Court
Parvendra vs State Of U.P. Though It Principal ... on 19 October, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:202687
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10332 of 2023
Applicant :- Parvendra
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Though It Principal Secretary And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard Mr. Atul Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant 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.785 of 2005, under Sections 307 and 506 IPC, Police Station Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant in fact no such incident has taken place as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Initially the impugned FIR has been lodged against three accused persons including the applicant. Only general allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons. No specific role has been assigned. As per allegation, the applicant and two other accused persons armed with country made pistol entered into the house of the informant and opened fire upon the father of the informant, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries. During investigation, the investigating officer has not found any credible evidence against the applicant, hence, final report has been submitted against the applicant and co-accused Rajkumar. Charge sheet has only been submitted against co-accused Upendra. Being aggrieved, the informant filed protest petition in which the applicant was summoned, which was challenged by the applicant by filing Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.2971 of 2007 before this Court and the court has stayed the proceeding. He further submits that in the meantime the court below has issued warrant against the applicant on the basis of judgment of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. CBI. He further submits that the applicant is having previous criminal history of one case in which the applicant is on bail and the same has been mentioned in paragraph 19 of the affidavit. He further submits that similarly placed co-accused person, namely, Rajkumar has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 27.09.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.10248 of 2023, copy of the same has been placed on record.
4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.
5. 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.
6. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant-Parvendra, 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 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 applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(iii) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
(vi) 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 :- 19.10.2023
Ajeet
