Allahabad High Court
Rajeev Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 20 September, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:181614
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9924 of 2023
Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Pandey,Yogesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashwini Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard Mr. Yogesh 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 Case Crime No.73 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Ganga Nagar, District Meerut.
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. The incident is alleged to have taken place in the year 2016 whereas the impugned FIR has been lodged on 23.03.2022 i.e. after a delay of 4 years and 10 months for which no plausible explanation has been mentioned. As per allegation, the informant has purchased 150 square yards from co-accused Ankur and remaining part of the said plot was 50 square yards, which was purchased from the applicant and when the informant tried to build a wall, then the original owner of the said plot Dr. Manmohan Nath Seth came and restricted to fill the foundation of the said plot. He further submits that the applicant is a police constable and is a bonafide purchaser of the plot in dispute, which was purchased to one Sumit Kumar, who later on sold the said plot to the first informant. He further submits that as per version of the impugned FIR, Manmohan Nath Seth stopped the informant from building a wall on her plot. The applicant has nothing to do with the alleged incident. The dispute is purely civil in nature but has given criminal colour just to harass the applicant. Prima facie no alleged offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 14 of the affidavit. He further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, the 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 vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of 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-Rajeev Kumar, 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 :- 20.9.2023
Ajeet
