Allahabad High Court
Abhishek Pandey And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 August, 2022
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7117 of 2022 Applicant :- Abhishek Pandey And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Naseem Rufi Q Alrafio B.M. Mugaanii,Shikha Singh Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Counter affidavit on behalf of the complainant, filed in Court today, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No. 1940 of 2014, under Sections 308, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Varanasi with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. The complaint was made against applicants and co-accused Rajesh Pandey and Ajay Pandey by making false and baseless allegations and that applicants have been summoned in a complaint case. It was submitted that in fact earlier on 04.06.2014 the mother of applicants has lodged an FIR regarding publication of obscene photographs of her daughter and during investigation of that matter, involvement of complainant of this case was found and he has even confessed his involvement before the police and later on the complaint of this case has been filed as a counterblast to that case. There is no x-ray report of complainant to show that he has sustained any fracture or bony injury and thus, no case under Section 308 IPC is made out. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that the allegations made against the applicants are thoroughly false and improbable. Co-accused Rajesh Pandey and Ajay Pandey have already been granted anticipatory bail by the court below. Applicants have no criminal antecedents. The applicants undertake to co-operate during trial and they would appear as and when required by the Court. It has been stated that in case, applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during trial and would obey all conditions of bail.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail and argued that in the complaint, the role of assaulting the complainant with lathi and iron rod has been assigned to the applicants and thus, their role is distinguished from co-accused Rajesh Pandey and Ajay Pandey. Referring to the injury report of injured/complainant, it was submitted that complainant has sustained several injuries. The allegation that the complainant has admitted his involvement in the alleged earlier case, lodged by mother of applicants, is false. It was submitted that there are serious allegations against the applicants and that the alleged compromise is not part of the case diary.
It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.
In the instant case, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.
The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
In the event of arrest of the applicants, namely, Abhishek Pandy and Sanoop Pandey @ Atul Pandey in the aforesaid complaint case, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions :-
(i) the applicants shall appear before the court below on the date fixed by that court and they shall not seek unwarranted adjournments and would co-operate in trial;
(ii) 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/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court;
(iii) the applicants would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.
In default of any of the conditions, the complainant/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.
Order Date :- 31.8.2022 Anand