Allahabad High Court
Viri Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 May, 2024
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:83392
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4163 of 2024
Applicant :- Viri Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Srivastav, Lavesh Sharma, Ravindra Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Pankaj
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard Mr. Gaurav Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Pankaj, learned counsel for the informant.
2. This anticipatory bail application (under Section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.45 of 2022, under Sections 323, 307, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Iradatnagar, District Agra.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant in fact no such incident has taken place as alleged in the impugned FIR. As per FIR, there are four accused persons including the applicant and only allegation against the applicant is that he has beaten the injured with kicks and fits and main role assigned to co-accused Shyam Singh who fired upon the injured. Earlier the applicant has lodged an FIR on 03.07.2020 under Section 302 IPC against the informant regarding murder of his brother Jeevan Singh in which charge sheet has already been submitted against the informant and his brother. He further submits that during investigation, no credible evidence was found against the applicant, hence, the investigating officer has submitted final report on 25.07.2022. Being aggrieved, the informant filed protest petition in which the court below vide order dated 01.04.2023 directed for further investigation and during further investigation, the applicant has fully cooperated and again final report was submitted against the applicant on 29.06.2023 and again being aggrieved, the informant filed second protest petition on 07.12.2023 i.e. about five months of filing the second final report and the court below vide order dated 12.02.2024 summoned the applicant under the aforesaid sections without considering the statement of the injured in which he has has specially stated that applicant has beaten him with kicks and fits and he has assigned the main role for causing firearm injury against co-accused Shyam Singh. He further submits that two times final reports have been submitted against the applicant and during investigation, the applicant has fully cooperated in the investigation, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant, hence, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial. The applicant is having previous criminal history of one case in which he is on bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.
5. 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.
6. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant-Viri Singh, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail 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.
7. 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.
8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 9.5.2024
Ajeet
