Allahabad High Court
Wahid And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 May, 2024
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:89228
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12569 of 2023
Applicant :- Wahid And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Waseem
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard 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.238 of 2015, under Sections 354A, 452, 323, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act as against the applicant no.1 and under Sections 452, 323, 506 IPC and 7/8 and 16/17 POCSO Act against the applicant nos.2 and 3, Police Station C.B. Ganj, District Bareilly.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicants. The applicants has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Only general role has been assigned to the applicants. No specific role assigned to the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants is claiming parity of co-accused person, namely, Zahid, who has already been granted anticipatory till conclusion of trial by this Court vide order dated 01.04.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.3296 of 2024, copy of the same has been placed on record. The applicants are having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph no.18 of the affidavit.
4. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants but could not dispute the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicants.
5. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicants, they 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.
6. In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants-Wahid, Kafeel Ahmad and Mahfooz Ahmad, 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.
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 applicants.
8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.5.2024
Ajeet
