Allahabad High Court
Botani Devi Alias Arti Devi And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 May, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:80505
Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4238 of 2024
Applicant :- Botani Devi Alias Arti Devi And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Brijesh Kumar Srivastava,G.A.,Sonu Kumar Upadhyay
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised. None present on behalf of the opposite party.
2. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj 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.634 of 2020, registered under Sections 323, 504, 308 I.P.C. at Police Station Gagaha, District Gorakhpur with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
4. In the said case, FIR is delayed by 23 days and there is no explanation of the said delay. Learned counsel has stated that the allegations are per se false. The applicants were granted interim protection by this Court. The applicant nos.1, 2, 3 & 4 were enlarged on anticipatory bail till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. passed inCriminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 8051 of 2020 and 372 of 2021 vide orders dated 20.11.2020 and 18.01.2021, respectively. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicants have not misused the opportunity granted earlier and have co-operated during investigation.
5. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director AIR 2021 SC 4154, wherein the Court has clearly held that if a person, who is an accused in a non-bailable/cognizable offence, was not taken into custody during the period of investigation, in such a case, it is appropriate that he may be released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The applicants have no criminal antecedents to their credit. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they have co-operated in the investigation and are 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 applicants. Relying on its judgement passed in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Supreme 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.
7. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicants are 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 applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court.
8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants- Botani Devi @ Arti Devi, Ramesh Sahani @ Jhinak, Vishal and Akash be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i). that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii). that the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
(iii). that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
(v). that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(vi). that the applicants 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 below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
9. 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 :- 6.5.2024
Priya
(Krishan Pahal, J.)
