Allahabad High Court
Rajkumar vs State Of U.P. Though It Principal ... on 27 September, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:187660
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10248 of 2023
Applicant :- Rajkumar
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 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, 506 IPC, P.S. Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar, during the pendency of trial.
3. As per contents of the FIR, on 14.10.2005 at about 7.15 in the morning, when father of the informant was sitting at his house, at that time applicant and others, having country made pistols in their respective hands, entered the house of the informant and opened fire with an intention to kill the father of the informant, as a result of which father of the informant sustained serious injuries, and hearing the cries people of the vicinity came on the spot and all the accused persons including the applicant ran away from the spot after extending threat of dire consequences.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that F.I.R. has been lodged against 3 named persons including the applicant and during investigation name of the applicant has been exonerated, thereafter, informant filed protest petition and the applicant was summoned. It is further contended that the applicant challenged the said summoning order by filing Criminal Application U/s 482 No. 2971 of 2007 wherein interim protection was granted in favour of the applicant but lateron same stands vacated in the light of decision of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Vs CBI and coercive process has been issued against the applicant. It is further submitted that in the FIR, general allegation has been levelled against the applicant. There is no specific role assigned to the applicant. The applicant is having definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time. The applicant has no criminal history and is aged about 70 years.
5. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said facts.
6. 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.
7. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant Rajkumar involved in the aforesaid 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:-
(1) 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;
(2) 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; and
(3) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(4) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(5) 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.
(6) 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.
(7) 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.
8. 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.
9. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.9.2023
RavindraKSingh
