Allahabad High Court
Anuj Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 May, 2024
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:100010
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4986 of 2024
Applicant :- Anuj Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Prakash Vishwakarma,Sunil Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Learned AGA has filed Affidavit, which is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant.
3. This anticipatory bail application (under Section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.75 of 2024, under Sections 306, 323, 506 IPC, Police Statrion Sarsawa, District Saharanpur.
4. 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 and the deceased was working together at one place. As per allegation, the deceased and one Varsha were seen by the applicant in a objectionable conditions. It is also alleged that applicant has also given threat to implicate him in a false case. In the alleged incident, a suicidal note has also been found, which was sent to forensic examination for handwriting information but the report is still awaited.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that from perusal of FIR as well as statements of informant and also suicidal note, it cannot be inferred that applicant in any manner had ever instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Except general allegation, there is no other evidence available on record to show that essential ingredients of Section 107 IPC can be attracted, therefore, it cannot be said that present appellant had instigated, provoked, incited, urged or encouraged the deceased to commit the suicide. Essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are completely missing even the contents of abetment of suicide have not been there as provided under Section 107 IPC. He further submits that even if the entire version of the suicidal note is taken to be true, no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out against 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 13 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.
6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.
7. 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.
8. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant-Anuj 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 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 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.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(v) 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.
(vi) 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.
(vii) 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.
9. 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.
10. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 31.5.2024
Ajeet
