Satish Chandra Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:83677

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2368 of 2024

Applicant :- Satish Chandra Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Singh,Anil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Counter AfÏdavit filed on behalf of State is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Instant application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the accused-applicant on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. C 26/06, under sections 419,420,467,468,471 of the I.P.C., Police StationColonelganj, District-Gonda.

¶9

From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 22.10.2024 following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:-

¶10

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶11

The instant application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. C 26 of 2006, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Colonelganj, District Gonda.

¶12

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the applicant is a marginal witness and he identified Kali Prasad whose name was entered in the revenue record. He

¶13

added that there seems to be some dispute between two persons with respect to the ownership of the property but fact remains that the name of Kali Prasad was entered in the revenue record at the time when the registered saledeed was executed in favour of the purchaser. He further submits that there is no criminal intent to commit any offence and the applicant has falsely been implicated. He added that the applicant is 72 years of age and he has no involvement in committing the offence and there is apprehension that the police will arrest the applicant, thus, he submits that the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶14

On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is named in the First Information Report and he is a marginal witness and therefore, he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶15

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it transpires that the applicant is a marginal witness and he identified the person/vendor whose name was recorded in the revenue record at the time of registry and the applicant is 72 years of age. Thus, this Court finds it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶16

Accordingly, till the next date of listing, the present applicant-Satish Chandra Shukla 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:-

¶17

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police ofÏcer as and when required;

¶18

(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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence;

¶19

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶20

(iv) that in case chargesheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶21

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶22

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

¶23

(vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶24

List/put up this matter in the week commencing 25.11.2024.

¶25

In the meantime, learned counsel for the State shall file the counter afÏdavit."

¶26

From perusal of the order dated 22.10.2024, it transpires that State counsel has failed to demonstrate that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on an interim anticipatory bail after thorough considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to substantiate that the present applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceedings.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby disposed of while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Satish Chandra Shukla till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:-

¶28

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police ofÏcer as and when required;

¶29

(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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence;

¶30

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶31

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial

¶32

court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶33

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

¶34

In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

¶35

Order Date :- 13.12.2024 AKS