Allahabad High Court
Kumar Nayan Singh vs Union Of India And Another on 13 November, 2024
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:178082
Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8951 of 2024
Applicant :- Kumar Nayan Singh
Opposite Party :- Union Of India And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Nitin Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Alok Ranjan Mishra,G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Vivekanand Maurya, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Alok Ranjan Mishra, learned counsel for the informant/opposite party no.2 and Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.03 of 2022, under Section 3 and 4 of the Raiway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, Police Station-RPF Post Chopan, District-Sonbhadra, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that earlier, prior submission of charge sheet, the applicant approached before this Court by means of filing Cri. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.11999 of 2022 wherein on 03.11.2020, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, while granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant, has passed following order:-
"Heard Sri Dharmendra Singhal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shivendra Raj Singhal, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel for the R.P.F. as well as Sri Kameshwar Singh, learned counsel for the Union of India and also learned A.G.A. for State.
The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for protection in regard to FIR/Case Crime No. 3 of 2022, under Sections 3 & 4 of Railway Protection (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, P.S.- R.P.F. Post Chopan, District- Sonebhadra.
After arguing for some time, applicant's counsel submits that the present application for anticipatory bail may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a regular bail application which may be decided keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 825.
Sri Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel for the R.P.F. as well as Sri Kameshwar Singh, learned counsel for the Union of India and also learned A.G.A. have no objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant.
In view of the above, considering the aforesaid alternative prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that the applicant shall surrender before the concerned court below within a period of six weeks from today and in case, a regular bail application is filed, the same be decided in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra).
For the period of six weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the concerned court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant, in the above case.
With the above observations and directions, this application is disposed of."
He further submits that after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted on 10.08.2023 on which cognizance has been taken on 20.12.2023. He further submits that the applicant has always co-operated in the investigation and has not misused the liberty of aforesaid interim anticipatory bail, which was granted to them vide order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court. He further submits that the applicant is ready to appear before the concerned court on regular dates during the trial. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegation made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant has also been touched upon length. 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.
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 applicants.
On due consideration to the argument advanced by learned A.G.A., perused the entire records and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case in view of the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgement of the Apex Court.
In view of above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.
Let the applicant-Kumar Nayan Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail till the 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:-
1.The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.
3. The applicant shall not leave India during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
4. The applicant shall surrender their passports, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. Their passports will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.
5. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the trial Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1.
6. 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;
7. 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 him/her/them in accordance with law.
It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 13.11.2024
Jitendra/-
