Allahabad High Court
Radheshyam And Another vs State Of U.P. on 9 May, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:83789
Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4415 of 2024
Applicant :- Radheshyam And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- S.P. Vishwakarma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri S.P. Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Pranshu 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 Complaint Case No.860 of 2022 (Sharda Devi vs. Rikhiram and others), registered under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 392 I.P.C. at Police Station- Bhawaniganj, District- Siddharth Nagar with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that co-accused person Sunita has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court today itself in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.4370 of 2024. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicants. Therefore, the present applicants are also entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. Learned counsel for the applicants undertake that they will cooperate in the trial failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.
5. The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 coupled with the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.
7. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants- Radheshyam and Rikhiram Vishwakarma be released forthwith in the aforesaid complaint case (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 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 the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(v). that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(vi). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
8. 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 :- 9.5.2024
Vikas
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
