Allahabad High Court
Balram Agrahari @ Balram Chhotelal ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko on 5 February, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7512
Court No. - 31
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 108 of 2025
Applicant :- Balram Agrahari @ Balram Chhotelal Agrahari
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko
Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. This case has been taken up through video conferencing from Allahabad.
2. Heard Sri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Parul Kant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.17 of 2022, registered under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 of the D.P. Act at Police Station- Haliapur, District Sultanpur with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of Final Report (charge sheet) by this Court vide order dated 29.07.2022 and the following order was being passed :-
"Heard Sri Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vinay Kumar Sahi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the records.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.17 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, at Police Station- Haliyapur, District Sultanpur with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
As per prosecution story, the applicant and his son are stated to have subjected the daughter of the informant to cruelty for a demand of dowry. The victim is stated to have been admitted to a hospital on 11.01.2022. The informant got the information of the said injury on 30.01.2022. The victim is stated to have expired on 31.01.2022 at about 8:00 am in the hospital.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he is the father-in-law of the deceased and has nothing to do with the said offence whatsoever. Learned counsel has indicated several other discrepancies in the FIR itself, which according to him has been lodged after the death of the victim although she was undergoing treatment in government and private hospital for a period of more than twenty days. Learned counsel has further stated that as per the post mortem report, the cause of death is chronic lung decease which cannot be attributed to the applicant. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. The charge-sheet has not yet been submitted against the applicant. The investigation is going on. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that the applicant has co-operated in the investigation and undertakes that he will cooperate in the investigation in future also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but could not dispute the said facts.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant deserves to be granted anticipatory bail in connection with the aforesaid case.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is disposed of with following directions:-
(A) In the event of arrest of the applicant- Balram Agrahari involved in aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on his/her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned;
(B) 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;
(C) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and
(D) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
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. "
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased person and he has nothing to do with the said offence. He is cooperating during trial. The processes have been issued against the applicant by the trial Court on 12.09.2024 only and not before that and the final report was filed well before it.
6. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgement of theSupreme Court in Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director AIR 2021 SC 4154, wherein the Court has clearly held that if a person, who is an accused in a non-bailable/cognizable offence, was not taken into custody during the period of investigation, in such a case, it is appropriate that he may be released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. 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. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. 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.
7. 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 applicant.
8. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of 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 theSupreme Court.
9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Balram Agrahari @ Balram Chhotelal Agrahari be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(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 the previous permission of the court;
(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted 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;
(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
10. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
Order Date :- 5.2.2025
Sumit S
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
