Allahabad High Court
Amar Nath And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 13 January, 2025
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2169
Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 42 of 2025
Applicant :- Amar Nath And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Pandey,Shashank Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Nikhil Singh, learned AGA for the State.
2. In view of the proposed order, notice to opposite party no.2 is hereby dispensed with.
3. By means of present anticipatory bail application, the applicants have shown their apprehension of arrest in FIR No.09 of 2017, Complaint Case No.118 of 2019, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 326A of I.P.C., Police Station- Alapur, District- Ambedkar Nagar. It has been submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case as they have not committed any offence as alleged.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that for the alleged incident dated 2.11.2016, an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed against the present applicants and others on 9.1.2017. After thorough investigation the final report has been filed in the aforesaid case. Thereafter the protest application has been filed in the case on behalf of informant, on that the complaint case has been registered. Learned counsel has further stated that the entire prosecution story is false and inasmuch as the allegations against the present applicants and others are that the accused persons have thrown some highly inflammable item on the son of the informant but during the investigation it was found that the child had sustained burn injury on account of hot milk which was being boiled in his house itself. As a matter of fact, it was sheer accident within the house of the informant.
5. Further attention has been drawn towards Annexure no. 10 which is a statement dated 7.11.2020 in Complaint Case no. 113 of 2019 wherein the informant has apprised the Court that there is a civil dispute between the parties.
6. Attention has also been drawn towards Annexure no. 14 which is a judgment and order dated 27.4.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 842 of 2023 (Indramani Yadav and 6 others vs. State of U.P. & others) which was filed by seven accused persons of the present case and this Court allowed the aforesaid appeal quashing the summoning order in question to the extent the summons were issued under the provisions of SC/ST Act.
7. Learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure no. 15 which is an order dated 5.7.2024 passed by this Court in Application u/s 482 No. 5616 of 2024 whereby the 'Non-Bailable Warrant' issued against the co-accused persons in the present case was assailed and this Court allowed the aforesaid petition setting aside the N.B.W.
8. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that for exerting pressure in a civil dispute these criminal proceedings have been initiated against the present applicants. The present applicants have no prior criminal history and the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. Further, co-accused persons Sitaram and Another, having similar role, have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.2581 of 2024, therefore, on the principles of parity, liberty of the present applicants may be protected. Learned counsel has further submitted that the applicants are ready to participate in the proceedings, therefore, their liberty may be protected till conclusion of the proceedings in view of dictum of the Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC online SC 98.
9. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the applicants but could not dispute the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants.
10. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that two co-accused persons, having similar role, have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and undertaking of the applicants that they shall cooperate in the proceedings, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that liberty of the applicants may be protected till conclusion of the proceedings in view of dictum of the Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal (supra).
11. Therefore, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicants- Amar Nath and Indramani Yadav shall be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of the proceedings in the aforesaid complaint case on both of them furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority/ court concerned with the following conditions:-
I. The applicants are directed to appear before the court below concerned within a period of ten days or on date fixed whichever is earlier and shall cooperate in the proceedings, failing which any application may be filed seeking cancellation of the aforesaid order.
II. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;
III. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
IV. that the applicants shall appear before the court below concerned on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
V. that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
12. Before parting with, learned court below concerned is directed to conduct and conclude the proceedings with expedition and no unnecessary adjournment shall be given to any of the parties.
13. In view of above, the present anticipatory bail application is disposed of.
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
Order Date :- 13.1.2025
RBS/-
