Allahabad High Court
Vijendra Singh vs State Of U.P. on 28 October, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:205928
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11793 of 2023
Applicant :- Vijendra Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard Sri Krishna Kumar Singh, 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 S.T. No. 879 of 2015 (State Vs. Kapil Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.83 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Bhagatpur, District- Moradabad.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is maternal uncle (Mamiya Sasur) of the deceased. Name of the applicant came into light during investigation in the statement of P.W.1. The applicant has never demand any dowry. The applicant lives separately and he has no concern with the alleged incident. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that earlier, the applicant has approached this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 34553 of 2016 (Km. Nikki and another Vs. State of U.P. and another) and co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.12.2016 stayed the proceedings of the court below, and thereafter, vide order of this Court dated 22.11.2019, the aforesaid application was dismissed for want of prosecution. He submitted that the applicant is not charge sheeted, the charge sheet has been submitted against other accused persons. No credible evidence has been found against the applicant. He further submitted that as per post-mortem report, the deceased was died due to electric shock. He submitted that other accused persons are on bail. The applicant has no criminal history. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he 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 applicant. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, he is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
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- Vijendra Singh, 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 applicant shall co-operate with the trial.
(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 stands allowed.
Order Date :- 28.10.2023
Krishna*
