Allahabad High Court
Rajeev @ Rajeev Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 29 February, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:36913
Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1728 of 2024
Applicant :- Rajeev @ Rajeev Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Zakir
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Mohammad Zakir, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anjani Kumar, 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. 927 of 2022 registered under Sections 341, 324, 308, 504 IPC at Police Station - Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahr with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the co-accused Suresh is stated to be carrying vengeance towards the informant as such he along with the applicant and other co-accused is stated have assaulted the informant on 24.12.2022. In the meantime, 13 years old sister and brother are stated to have intervened but they were also assaulted by the accused persons and caused injuries to them.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The prosecution story stands falsified on the ground that the main accused is Suresh. Although, general allegations of assault have been levelled against all the accused persons but the motive was carried out by Suresh to commit the offence and the very same person has been exonerated by the police in the final report and the charge sheet has been filed against applicant and three other accused persons. Learned counsel has further submitted that the applicant was not arrested during investigation. 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. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for 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.
6. 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.
7. Relying on its judgement passed in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Apex Court in Md. Asfak Alam Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2023) 8 SCC 632 has stated that once the charge-sheet was filed and there was no impediment, at least on the part of the accused, the court having regard to the nature of the offences, the allegations and the maximum sentence of the offences they were likely to carry, ought to have granted the bail as a matter of course. However, the court did not do so but mechanically rejected and, virtually, to rub salt in the wound directed the appellant to surrender and seek regular bail before the trial court. Thus, the High Court fell into error in adopting such a casual approach.
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- Rajeev @ Rajeev Kumar 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 :- 29.2.2024
Manoj
(Krishan Pahal, J.)
