Allahabad High Court
Nand Kishor And 11 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 May, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:85164
Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4454 of 2024
Applicant :- Nand Kishor And 11 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material available on record.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No. 29 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 336, 504, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, Police Station Farah, District Mathura, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants has stated that they have every apprehension of their arrest and have claimed parity with the co-accused Jeetu @ Jitendra, Vishnu and Shivdayal, who have already been granted anticipatory bail by another Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 4597 of 2024 vide order dated 8.5.2024. The applicants have no criminal antecedents to their credit. Since the case of the applicants is at par with the co-accused person, who have already been granted anticipatory bail, the applicants are also entitled for the same on the ground of parity.
5. The prayer for anticipatory bail has have been vehemently opposed by learned AGA. 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 Apex 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 of the applicants is allowed on the ground of parity.
7. In the event of arrest of the applicants, Nand Kishor, Sonu, Prahlad Singh @ Chhotu, Ramveer, Vishnu, Krishna Murari, Bhanu Pratap Singh, Pawan, Ravi, Balma @ Shaymsundar, Pawan Kumar and Harkesh 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 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 him 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, the 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;
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail of the applicants.
9. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 13.5.2024
Shalini
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
