Rajendra Vs State of Up and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70272

Court No. - 69

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4932 of 2024

Applicant :- Rajendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anand Kumar Srivastava,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit, filed by the counsel for complainant/ opposite party no.2, is taken on record.

¶7

Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Anand Kumar Srivastava, counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State. Perused the material on record.

¶8

The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 16.5.2024 by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The order is quoted herein below:-

¶9

" 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Vishwa Deepak Mishra, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶10

2. The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in Complaint Case No.80315 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 452, 467, 468, 392 I.P.C., P.S. Sarnath, District Varanasi.

¶11

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. The instant complaint is without support of any evidence and parties are claiming right over the property in dispute. Allegation alleged in the complaint disclose civil nature dispute. It is next submitted that civil suit is pending between the parties. It is a no injury case and summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate is without application of judicial mind. Instant case is squarely covered under section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on 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.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

6. List this case immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period.

¶15

7. 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 Court with the following conditions:-

¶16

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

¶17

(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;

¶18

(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 S.S.P./S.P./C.P./A.C.P concerned.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

8. 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. "

¶23

Counsel for the applicant contends that pursuant to the order dated 16.5.2024 the applicant had furnished bail bonds before the court and is appearing before the concerned court on the dates fixed. Counsel for the applicant further contends that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. The informant had already instituted a civil suit in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Varanasi registered as Case No. 4 of 2018 (Radhey Shyam Maurya vs. Arvind Kumar Yadav and another) for restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession of the property in dispute. The applicant has no concern with the alleged property. The applicant was granted financial assistance under the Pradhanmantri Awas Yojana on the basis of genuine documents submitted. The applicant has not forged or manipulated any documents. In the alleged incident dated 1.2.2023 the complainant has not received any injury. No medical report has been annexed along with complaint. At present there is no substantive evidence against the applicant that the applicant had cheated the complainant. Further there are inconsistencies in the

¶24

complaint and in the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. with the regard to the exact role of the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. In case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, till the conclusion of trial, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶25

Learned A.G.A. and counsel for the opposite party no.2 have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶26

Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the applicant as recorded in the order dated 16.5.2024, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicant, the fact that the applicant is appearing before the concerned court on the dates fixed and no violation of conditions or misuse of liberty of interim anticipatory bail has been pointed out by learned AGA; the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature; no medical report has been annexed along with complaint.; at present there is no substantive evidence against the applicant that the applicant has cheated the complainant, the fact that there are inconsistencies in the complaint and in the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. with the regard to the exact role of the applicant, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶27

In the event of arrest, the applicant Rajendra , involved in Complaint Case No.80315 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 452, 467, 468, 392 I.P.C., P.S. Sarnath, District Varanasi 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:-

¶28

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

¶29

(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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court;

¶30

(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.

¶31

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

¶32

The application stands disposed of.

¶33

Order Date :- 2.5.2025 S.S.

¶34

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajendra v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases