Allahabad High Court
Rahul Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 January, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:703
Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 14163 of 2023
Applicant :- Rahul Kumar And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Joshi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Mukesh Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Deepak 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 applicants in Case Crime No.0198 of 2023 registered under Sections 323, 324, 452, 504 and 506 IPC at Police Station- Chhajlait, District Moradabad with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
4. After arguing for some time, applicants' counsel submits that the present application for anticipatory bail may be disposed of with respect to applicant no.1- Rahul Kumar with a direction to file a regular bail application which may be decided keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825.
5. Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the prayer of learned counsel for the applicants with respect to applicant no.1.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the applicant no.1 has criminal history of six cases, no case is made out for interference U/s 438 Cr.P.C. The present anticipatory bail application is disposed of with a direction that applicant no.1 shall surrender before the concerned court within one month from today and in case a regular bail application is filed, the same be decided in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra).
7. For the period of one month from today or till the time of surrender of applicant no.1 before the concerned court, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant no.1- Rahul Kumar, in the above case.
8. As far as applicant no.2 is concerned, she is a lady and has been falsely implicated in the present case owing to her relations with the main accused person Rahul Kumar. The injuries are simple in nature. Learned counsel has further stated that initially the FIR was instituted under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. only and subsequent to it, Section 324 I.P.C. has been added. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of applicant no.2 to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against her. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of applicant no.2 have also been touched upon at length. There are no criminal antecedents of applicant no.2. Applicant no.2 has apprehension of her arrest. Learned counsel for applicant no.2 undertakes that she 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.
9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but could not dispute the fact that applicant no.2 has no criminal antecedents to her credit.
10. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for applicant no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents ofno.2, applicant no.2 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.
11. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of applicant no.2 is allowed. Let the accused-applicant no.2- Tirveni 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 applicant no.2 shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii). that applicant no.2 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 her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
(iii). that applicant no.2 shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant no.2 shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
(v). that applicant no.2 shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(vi). that applicant no.2 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.
12. 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 :- 3.1.2024
Ravi Kant
