Allahabad High Court
Akhilesh Chandra Dwivedi vs State Of U.P. on 25 September, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:185539
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10750 of 2023
Applicant :- Akhilesh Chandra Dwivedi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri C.L. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Yogesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.150 of 2023, registered under Sections 182, 195, 307, 211, 120-B I.P.C. and 3/25/27/35 Arms Act at Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Mirzapur with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
4. As per the allegations in the FIR, the named accused person Mani Yadav alongwith four unknown persons riding on two motorcycles intercepted the son of the informant Shubham Mishra and are stated to have fired at him, thereby caused injury to him on 15.7.2023 between 09:00-09:15 p.m.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is not named in the FIR. It is transpired during investigation that the said FIR has been falsely instituted against the accused persons at the behest of the applicant so as to foist a false case. Learned Senior Counsel has stated that in that case the statement of injured Shubham @ Gaurav, who happens to be co-accused, had been taken and it is stated that the said act has been committed by him in collusion with Vikas Tiwari and Vipin Pandey at the behest of the applicant. Learned Senior Counsel has stated that the said evidence is not admissible in evidence and it cannot be read against the applicant as barred by Section 26 of Indian Evidence Act.
6. Learned Senior Counsel has further stated that the criminal history of three cases assigned to the applicant stands explained in paragraph 20 of the affidavit filed with the anticipatory bail application. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
8. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Akhilesh Chandra Dwivedi be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i). that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii). that 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 or tamper with the evidence;
(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
10. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
Order Date :- 25.9.2023
Vikas
[Krishan Pahal, J.]
