Allahabad High Court
Shiv Ratan Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. on 15 May, 2024
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:87303
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4170 of 2024
Applicant :- Shiv Ratan Singh And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Om Vikram Singh Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard Mr. Ram Om Vikram Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. This anticipatory bail application (under Section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.142 of 2000 in Criminal Case No.2327 of 2001, under Sections 498A, 304 B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Dibiyapur, District Auraiya.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case, in fact, no such incident has taken place. The applicants have never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. The applicant no.1 is an old man aged about 72 years suffering from several disease and is 75% handicapped, copy of handicapped certificate is annexed as Annexure No.9 to the affidavit. During investigation, no credible evidence was found against the applicants, hence, final report was submitted. Being aggrieved, the informant has filed protest petition before the court below and the court below has taken the cognizance and summoned the applicants. Feeling aggrieved, the applicants have approached before this Court by filing Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.3165 of 2003 in which this Court stayed the proceeding of the aforesaid case. The applicants are having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 21 of the affidavit. He further submits that there is apprehension of imminent arrest of the applicants and in case, the applicants are released on anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has very fairly submits that it is true that the proceedings of 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicants, therefore, the applicants are not entitled for any relief as per judgment of Apex Court in the case of Srikant Upadhyay and others vs. State of Bihar and another in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7940 of 2023, but keeping in mind the age of the applicants and also considering the fact that applicant no.1 is 75% disabled person and suffering from several disease, the applicants are entitled for bail on mercy ground.
5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants but could not dispute the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicants.
6. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicants, applicants are 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 applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
7. In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants-Shiv Ratan Singh and Smt. Draupadi, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial 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 applicants 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 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;
(iii) The applicants shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(iv) The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(v) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants.
(vi) In case, the applicants misuse 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 applicants 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 their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.
8. 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 applicants.
9. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 15.5.2024
Ajeet
