Sharad Dixit Alias Udai vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 6301 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Sharad Dixit Alias Udai vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 March, 2025

Author: Vivek Varma

Bench: Vivek Varma

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40822
 
Court No. - 69
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 10471 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Sharad Dixit Alias Udai
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pranshu Dwivedi,Ram Prakash Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
 

1. As per the office report dated 8.1.2025 notice of the present application has been served upon the opposite party no.2. However when the matter is taken up, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

2. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State. Perused the material available on record.

3. On 12.11.2024, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had passed the following order :

"1. Heard Sri Pranshu Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No.898 of 2018, under Sections-498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of DP Act, 1961, Police Station-New Agra, District-Agra.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet and charge sheet was challenged before this Hon'ble Court by filing Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.2447 of 2021 and this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 17.02.2021 referred the matter to Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Allahabad, thereafter, matter could not be conciliated and on 09.09.2024 the 482 application was disposed of with direction to the applicant to surrender before the concerned court below and apply for bail and the bail application be decided in law laid down by Hon'ble The Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI and another. Applicant's counsel further submitted that applicant filed divorce petition and the same was allowed by the court concerned. Applicant would co-operate in the trial proceedings. In case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would co-operate with the investigation. Applicant has definite apprehension of his arrest by the police.

4. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant with the contention that the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail as prima facie case is made out.

5. Issue notice to opposite party no.2, returnable at an early date.

6. Learned A.G.A. granted four week's time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

7. List this case after six weeks.

8. As an interim protection, till the next date of listing fixed for hearing on this application, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required;

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if applicant has passport, the same shall be deposited before the S.S.P./S.P./C.P./A.C.P concerned.

(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(v) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

(vi) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted.

9. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt. Advocate/concerned court is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. "

4. Counsel for the applicant submits that pursuant to the order dated 12.11.2024 the applicant is appearing before the concerned court and contesting the proceedings. Counsel for applicant further contends that the maximum sentence provided for the alleged offences is upto seven years. He submits that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case. In case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

5. Learned A.G.A. for the State could not dispute the fact that the offences against the applicant are punishable upto seven years. He does not dispute the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra).

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) has laid down the guidelines with regard to enlargement of an accused on bail. The guidelines provided category/type of offences. Once of the category being Category-A are offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less. The Supreme Court in paragraph-3 of the aforesaid judgment has laid down the guidelines that after the filing of the charge sheet/cognizance ordinary the summons are required to be issued permitting the appearance of the accused through Lawyer and the bail applications of the accused persons on appearance are to be decided without the accused being taken into custody or by granting interim bail. A perusal of the aforesaid guidelines would demonstrate that the liberty of an individual has been recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in term of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7. It is further to be noted that as per Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also during investigation the liberty of an individual is protected in respect of an offence where the maximum punishment provided is upto seven years.

8. It is not the case of the opposite party that applicant was arrested for the alleged offences during investigation and it is also not the case of the opposite party that the applicant had not co-operated in the investigation. Once no apprehension has been raised with regard to the conduct of the applicant and the applicant has been charge-sheeted and summoned in respect of offence in which punishment provided is upto seven years, then in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the liberty of the individual is required to be protected.

9. It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would disentitle the applicant for relief of anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

10. Learned AGA has not placed any criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant has no criminal history.

11. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

12. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicant, the applicant had not misused the liberty of interim anticipatory bail and the fact that the offences against the applicant are punishable up to seven years and adhering to the guidelines provided in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

13. In the event of arrest, the applicant Sharad Dixit Alias Udai, involved in Case Crime No.898 of 2018, under Sections-498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of DP Act, 1961, Police Station-New Agra, District-Agra, be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) the applicant shall make himself available on each date fixed in the matter by the court concerned;

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court;

(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the concerned court.

14. In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

15. The application stands disposed of.

Order Date :- 20.3.2025

S.S.