Allahabad High Court
Updesh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 May, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:92093
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5002 of 2024
Applicant :- Updesh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rishika Raj Singhal,Shivendra Raj Singhal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Shivendra Raj Singhal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit 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 applicant in Case Crime No.184 of 2019 registered under Sections 272, 420 IPC and Section 60 Excise Act/Utpadan Shulk at Police Station- Jagner, District Agra with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Although the applicant is named in the FIR. His name has come up in the statement of the arrested co-accused persons, namely, Upendra and Vipin, which is not admissible in evidence. Learned counsel has further stated that earlier on the applicant was granted interim protection by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.11.2019, but subsequently due to the absence of counsel for the applicant, the same was dismissed as infructuous on 16.08.2023. Learned counsel has further stated that the said order has been passed due to the fault of counsel for the applicant.
5. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgement of theSupreme Court in Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director AIR 2021 SC 4154, wherein the Court has clearly held that if a person, who is an accused in a non-bailable/cognizable offence, was not taken into custody during the period of investigation, in such a case, it is appropriate that he may be released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail.
6. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no previous criminal history of the applicant except a case under Excise Act. Only summons have been issued against the applicant. The final report (charge-sheet) has been submitted against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
8. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of theSupreme Court.
9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Updesh be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (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 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 or tamper with the evidence;
(ii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iii). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(iv). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(v). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
10. 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 :- 22.5.2024
Ravi/-
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
