Allahabad High Court
Sandeep @ Sandeep Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 May, 2024
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:77892
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2754 of 2024
Applicant :- Sandeep @ Sandeep Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Devesh Kumar Shukla,Dharmesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Sri Kamlendra Tripathi, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the informant today in the Court, the same is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the material available on record.
3. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.2688 of 2019, under Sections 452, 376-D, 323, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Tappal, District- Aligarh.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant claims parity with the co-accused, namely, Sher Singh @ Sheru and Sonu @ Son Prakash, who have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide orders dated 6.3.2024 and 16.12.2023 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 2030 of 2024 and 13971 of 2023. The applicant has no previous criminal history. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.
5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.
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- Sandeep @ Sandeep Kumar, involved in the aforesaid 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.
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 is allowed.
Order Date :- 1.5.2024
Krishna*
