Allahabad High Court
Gokaran vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 4 March, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13619
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 98 of 2025
Applicant :- Gokaran
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Neeraj Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhineet Jaiswal,Shreya Jaiswal
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
The present application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.590 2023, under Sections- 420, 406, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Unnao.
From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 22.01.2025 following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.590 of 2023, under Section 420, 406, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Unnao.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the applicant is a poor farmer and while deceiving, some agreement to sale has been shown to be executed by him though he never executed such agreement. He added that the agreement to sale is said to be executed on 26.4.2018 and this F.I.R. has been lodged after application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved on 25.5.2023, i.e., about five years later. He also submits that a suit for specific performance has been instituted by the informant and that is pending consideration and and in order to give colour of criminality, instant F.I.R. has been lodged while the matter is purely civil in nature.
In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on a Judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Yaseer Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P. and another; Criminal Appeal No. 295 of 2022(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 7955 of 2021) decided on 28-02-2022; Inder Mohan Goswami and Another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others; (2007) 12 SCC 1; Chandran Ratnaswami Vs. K.C. Palaniswamy and others, (2013) 6 SCC 740; and Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd and others; (2006) 6 SCC 736.
He further submits that there is no criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 29 of the bail application and the applicant is undertaking that he will co-operate with the investigating proceedings and he will remain present before the Investigating Officer as and when required. He further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is a law abiding citizen and there is acute apprehension of being arrested by the police, as such, he may be granted anticipatory bail which he will not misuse.
On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and there is sufficient proof that he has committed the offence, as such, he is not entitled to any relief.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, this Court find it to be a fit case of interim anticipatory bail.
Till the next date of listing, the present applicant Gokaran shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent 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.
Let notice be issued to the opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.
Steps be taken within one week.
List/put up this matter on 11.2.2025.
In the meantime, learned counsel for the opposite parties shall file their counter affidavits."
State counsel has failed to demonstrate from the counter affidavit that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail after thorough considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to submit any fact that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceedings or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case.
In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Gokaran till disposal of the trial subject to 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/ her 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 the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and
(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.
In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this order.
Order Date :- 4.3.2025
(Manoj K.)
