Allahabad High Court
Sushil @ Solu @ Sunil Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 27 May, 2024
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:95446
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5000 of 2024
Applicant :- Sushil @ Solu @ Sunil Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Srivastava,Priyanka Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard Mr. O.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant 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.15 of 2014, under Sections 304, 452 IPC, Police Station Nagal, District Bijnor.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant in fact no such incident has taken place as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant is presently posted in IDFC First Banki as Credit Manager, Branch Manaspur, Chhatisgarh for the lat three years. During investigation, the investigating officer has not found any credible evidence against the applicant, hence, final report has been submitted and charge sheet has been submitted only against co-accused Ankit Kumar and Surendra and the court below has taken cognizance and proceeded with the case. During trial, the PW-2, who is the informant, has moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. disclosing the name of the applicant, thereafter, the applicant was summoned. He further submits that after summoning, the applicant has approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Application No.22563 of 2018 in which interim protection was granted to the applicant and the said application was ultimately dismissed on 05.02.2024. He further submits that during trial, the PW-1 has turned hostile. He further submits that informant has not disclosed the name of the applicant i the FIR as well as in statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and after two years, the informant appears to have named the applicant. Prima facie no alleged offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 26 of the affidavit. He further submits that there is apprehension of imminent arrest of the applicant and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.
4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.
5. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is 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 applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
6. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant-Sushil @ Solu @ Sunil Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case 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 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.
(ii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(iii) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 applicant.
(v) In case, the applicant misuses 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.
(vi) The applicant 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 his bail and proceed against his 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 applicant.
8. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, the court below is directed to conclude the trial of the aforesaid case, in accordance with law, within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this Court without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. It is made clear that that adjournment shall be granted on heavy cost.
9. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.5.2024
Ajeet
