Allahabad High Court
Avtar Singh vs State Of U.P. on 28 May, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:96789
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4213 of 2024
Applicant :- Avtar Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Tripathi,Vinod Kumar Tirpathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 111 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 307, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station - Noorpur, District - Bijnor, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have taken the amount to the tune of Rs. 4 lakhs from the informant on the pretext that he shall be given passport and visa of Canada and shall be accorded a job there. Out of the said amount i.e. Rs.4 lakhs, Rs.1,40,000/- are stated to have been given in cash and Rs. 2,60,000/- in monthly installments to the account of the applicant. The applicant is stated to have neither returned the said amount nor given the passport and visa of Canada to him.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has apprehension of his arrest. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is further stated that the allegations are vague. The applicant and other co-accused persons formed a union of ten persons, who knew each other and deposited money on monthly basis and one of the persons used to take away the said money every month. Even certain amount has been returned to the informant in several transactions.
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. It is further submitted that the applicant has criminal history of one case which has been explained in para-25 of the affidavit filed along with anticipatory bail application. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.
7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
8. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.
9. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground of criminal antecedent.
10. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the law laid down by the 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 Supreme Court.
11. Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.
12. In the event of arrest of the applicant, Avtar Singh, involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-
i. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
ii. 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;
iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;
iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.
14. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date:- 28.5.2024
Siddhant
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
