Allahabad High Court
Har Prakash vs State Of U.P. on 6 May, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:81125
Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3918 of 2024
Applicant :- Har Prakash
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Atharva Dixit,Pranav Tiwary
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 01 of 2021, under Section 308 of IPC, Police Station - Chitrahat, District - Agra, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that admittedly, the applicants were granted bail by the court of Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad, Agra vide order dated 22.01.2021 u/s 323 & 504 of IPC. Subsequently, Section 308 of IPC has been added. Learned counsel has placed much reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court passed in case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in 2016 (1) SCC (Cri) 240 and Manoj Suresh Jadhav & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra, reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3428, wherein the applicant therein was enlarged on anticipatory bail in the added sections U/S 438 Cr.P.C. after being enlarged on regular bail U/S 439 Cr.P.C. Learned Counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.9742 of 2021, wherein the accused was enlarged on anticipatory bail after being granted regular bail.
5. It is further argeed that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has apprehension of his arrest. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is further stated that the applicant had complied with the provisions of Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. 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. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.
6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail 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 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.
8. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the law laid down by the 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 Supreme Court.
9. Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.
10. In the event of arrest of the applicant, Har Prakash, involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-
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 previous permission of the court;
iv. that 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;
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.
12. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date:- 6.5.2024
Siddhant
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
