Allahabad High Court
Bairister vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 May, 2024
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:95791
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5009 of 2024
Applicant :- Bairister
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Amresh Tripathi,Pankaj Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard 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 Complaint Case No.650 of 2020, under Sections 376, 323, 406, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Tarkulwa, District Deoria.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant. The complainant is the daughter-in-law of the applicant. Earlier the applicant had lodged an FIR being Case Crime No.157 of 2018, under Sections 302 and 328 IPC regarding death of her cousin Manoj Kumar in which the complicity of the complainant and other co-accused persons have been shown and thereafter complainant and other accused persons were arrested and sent to jail and later on released on bail by this Court vide order dated 03.02.2020 and 22.10.2020, copy of bail orders have been annexed as Annexure Nos.3 and 4 to the affidavit. He further submits that due to this reason, the complainant has filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on false and concocted allegation before the learned Magistrate, which was treated as complaint case and after recording the statement of complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and also after obtaining report from the police officer concern, the court below in a routine manner summoned the applicant and his wife ignoring the report of the concern police wherein it is stated that no such incident has taken place, therefore, the court below has committed manifest error of law while summoning the applicant. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 25 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 opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of 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-Bairister, involved in the aforesaid complaint case 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. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.5.2024
Ajeet
