Allahabad High Court
Deepak vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 January, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:5891 Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10987 of 2023 Applicant :- Deepak Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag Shukla Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
1. Sri Anurag Shukla, Advocate, apprised the Court that although, he has filed his power on behalf of the informant but his name could not be shown in the cause list.
2. Sri Santosh Nigam, learned AGA for the State apprised the Court that he has received instructions in the present matter, therefore, the instant anticipatory bail application may be disposed of on merit.
3. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Santosh Nigam, learned A.G.A. for the State.
4. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 469 of 2022, under Section 387 IPC, Police Station Civil Line, District Etawah, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of false allegation, complainant lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant for the offence under Sections 387 IPC and maximum punishment for the offence under Section 387 IPC is seven years. He further submitted that applicant is having apprehension pursuant to the summoning order issued against the applicant, if he will appear before the court concerned then he will be sent to jail.
6. He further submitted that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case but that case was also lodged by the complainant of the present case and criminal history of the applicant has been explained in the instant anticipatory bail application.
7. He further submitted that considering the nature of allegation and the punishment provided under Section 387 IPC, applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of the trial.
8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsels for the informant, however, opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but both the counsels could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.
9. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.
10. Considering the fact that applicant was summoned in a complaint case under Section 387 IPC and maximum punishment provided is seven year for the offence under Section 387 IPC and criminal history of single case has been explained in the instant anticipatory bail application, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of the trial.
11. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed.
12. In the event of arrest of the applicant, Deepak involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-
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 previous permission of the court;
iv. that 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;
13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.
14. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 11.1.2024 KK Patel