Allahabad High Court
Gurdeo Singh And 22 Others vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 7 February, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:20915 Court No. - 75 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 46 of 2020 Applicant :- Gurdeo Singh And 22 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Siddharth Nandan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Ms. Samiksha Agarwal, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Siddharth Nandan, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material available on record.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0557 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 336, 379, 452 IPC, Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicant nos. 1, 6, 7, 9, 13, 20, 21, 22 and 23 have been exonerated, as such, the anticipatory bail application may be dismissed as infructuous qua the applicant nos.1, 6, 7, 9, 13, 20, 21, 22 and 23 namely, Gurdeo Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Harpal Singh, Chamkaur Singh, Kashmir Singh, Veer Kaur, Swarn Kaur and Harpreet Kaur.
5. The present application is accordingly dismissed as infructuous, qua the applicant nos. 1, 6, 7, 9, 13, 20, 21, 22 and 23 namely, Gurdeo Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Harpal Singh, Chamkaur Singh, Kashmir Singh, Veer Kaur, Swarn Kaur and Harpreet Kaur.
6. The present application is being heard with respect to the applicant nos. 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 19.
7. As per prosecution story, on 23.11.2019 at about 8.15 pm, the applicants alongwith other co-accused persons are stated to have barged into the house of the informant and one of the accused persons is stated to have fired at him, which missed and the informant is stated to have immediately approached the S.P. concerned and had also dialed 100 to call the police, whereby the police is stated to have reached the place of occurrence. Seeing the police coming, the applicants and other co-accused persons are stated to have run away from the scene of occurrence.
8. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants are maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and have the apprehension of their arrest. The applicants have nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has next stated that the FIR is delayed by about two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is also stated that Section 307 IPC has been deleted by the police during investigation and nine of the co-accused persons have been exonerated, as such, the prosecution story falls to the ground and stands falsified on this ground only. The criminal history of co-accused persons have been explained by the affidavit.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the said criminal history of the applicants stands explained. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed much reliance upon the judgement of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, wherein the Apex Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out.
10. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed, they will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.
11. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants.
12. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicants are liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgement of the Apex Court.
13. Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed.
14. In the event of arrest of the applicant nos. 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19, namely, Raghuveer Singh, Hardeo Singh, Sukhdeo Singh, Amrik Singh, Kashmir Singh, Satnam Singh, Sarjeet Singh, Sukhvindra Singh, Gurlal Singh, Gurwant Singh and Iqbal Singh 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 applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
ii. that 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
iii. that the applicants shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;
iv. that the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
v. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
vi. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence are exempted;
15. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicants.
16. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 7.2.2024 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal)