Raj Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dept. Home Civil Secrett. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:57811

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 130 of 2023

Applicant :- Raj Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dept. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Srees Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in FIR/ Case Crime No. 79 of 2020, under Section 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Makhi, District Unnao.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The co-ordinate Bench of this Court while granting interim protection vide order dated 20.01.2023 has passed the following order:-

¶9

"Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent as well as perused the record.

¶10

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending their arrest in Case Crime No.79 of 2020, under Section 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Makhi, District Unnao.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the First Information Report general role of assault has been leveled on all the four accused persons, however, the Investigating Officer has not found the prosecution story narrated in the F.I.R. correct and, therefore, charge-sheet has not been filed against the accused no.2. He further submits that even the injured in her statement has assigned general role of assault. The two injured Ramendra has received simple injuries whereas there is a fracture in the skull of the other injured Anoop.

¶12

It is submitted by the applicant that in fact a civil suit has been filed by the applicant no.1 before Civil Judge (Junior Division), South, Unnao bearing

¶13

Regular Suit No. 186 of 2019 Virendra and others vs. Gaya Prasad and others wherein vide order dated 12.10.2021 an order for interim injunction has been passed by the learned Civil Judge. As a counter blast this First Information Report has been lodged by falsely implicating the accused persons. The applicants have no criminal history. Specific pleading in this regard has been made in para 21 of the bail application.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the bail application and prays for ten days' time to file reply or seek specific instructions as to whether there is any criminal history against these applicants.

¶15

On due consideration to the arguments advance by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, as an interim measure it is provided that the applicants be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶16

In the event of arrest, let the accused-applicants Raj Kumar, Sunil and Daya Shankar be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned on the following conditions:-

¶17

(i) That the accused-applicants shall make himself available for interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation.

¶18

(ii) That the accused-applicants shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat and 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.

¶19

(iii) That the accused-applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions or in case it is otherwise found for any other reason the bail is required to be canceled, it shall be open for the State or the appropriate authority to move application for cancellation of bail/vacation of this order in accordance with law.

¶21

List on 1.2.2023.

¶22

In the meantime, learned A.G.A. may file counter affidavit."

¶23

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that charge-sheet in

¶24

the matter has been filed. Applicants have co-operated in the investigation and further undertake to cooperate in the trial. He submits that two prosecution witnesses have been examined.

¶25

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application, however, could not dispute the fact that charge-sheet in the matter has been filed.

¶26

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record so also the fact that charge-sheet in the matter has been filed and the fact that applicants have cooperated in the investigation and they shall cooperate in the trial, the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 20.01.2023 is made absolute in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

¶27

In view of the above, since, charge-sheet in the matter has been filed, the accused applicants Raj Kumar, Sunil and Daya Shankar are directed to surrender before trial court, if they are summoned to face trial for offence in question. The accused applicants shall be released on bail by the trial court on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶28

(i) The applicants 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 tamper with the evidence;

¶29

(ii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶30

(iii)The applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶31

(iv)The applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶32

(v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

¶33

Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.

¶34

It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶35

In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed.

¶36

Order Date :- 23.8.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶37

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raj Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dept. Home Civil Secrett. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dept. Home Civil Secrett. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lko.

Rajesh Mishra @ Rajesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Gurjant Singh Dhillon Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Sushil Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secy. Lko.

Avnish Singh @ Avinash vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Irshad Ahmad and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another