Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 July, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:109905 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11101 of 2023 Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raghuvansh Chandra,Ram Jee Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Connected with Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13761 of 2023 Applicant :- Shiv Bahadur And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raghuvansh Chandra,Ram Jee Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Connected with Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 358 of 2024 Applicant :- Anil Kumar Yadav And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raghuvansh Chandra,Ram Jee Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Raghuvansh Chandra, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. These applications for anticipatory bail have been filed by applicants-Rajesh Kumar, Shiv Bahadur, Parikramadeen, Pravin Kumar, Anil Kumar, Dan Singh, Dinesh Kumar Yadav, Sanjay Kumar Yadav and Anand Prakash seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 65 of 2015, under Sections 218, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Jagdishpura, District-Agra during the pendency of trial.
4. Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 30.11.2006, a delayed FIR dated 11.02.2015 was lodged by first informant-Baldhari Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, U.P. Vigilance Cell, Agra and was registered as Case Crime No. 65 of 2015, under Sections 218, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Jagdishpura, District-Agra. In the aforesaid FIR, 34 persons have been nominated as named accused.
5. After aforementioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. Upon completion of investigation, he, ultimately, submitted the police report dated 27.12.2022 in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., whereby various persons including the applicants have been charge sheeted.
6. Learned counsel for applicants contends that one of the co-accused Satish Chand approached this Court for anticipatory bail by filing Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 354 of 2023 (Satish Chand Vs. State of U.P. and Another), which was rejected by this Court, vide order dated 11.01.2023. For ready reference, the order dated 11.01.2023 is reproduced herein under:-
"1. Heard.
2. By way of this application under Section 438 CrPC, the accused-applicant seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest pursuant to FIR/Crime No.065 of 2015, under Sections 218, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC read with Sections 13(1)D and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "PC Act") lodged at Police Station Jagdishpua, District Agra.
3. Allegation against the accused-applicant and co-accused is that they had manipulated the interview marks of the candidates for the post of Jail Warder and on the basis of the said manipulation ineligible candidates got appointment, whereas suitable candidates were ousted from the merit list.
4. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that co-accused have been enlarged on anticipatory bail.
5. Considering the nature of offence, the evidence available against the accused-applicant and co-accused, this Court does not deet it appropriate to enlarge the accused-applicant on anticipatory bail.
6. REJECTED.
7. The accused-applicant is granted 07 days time from today to surrender and apply for regular bail and if he does so within the time prescribed, his application for regular bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with law."
7. Feeling aggrieved by the above order dated 11.01.2023, aforementioned co-accused approached the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1273 of 2023 (Satish Chand Vs. State of U.P. and Another). In the aforesaid appeal, an interim order dated 27.01.2023 was passed by Apex Court, which is reproduced herein under:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Issue notice, returnable within six weeks.
3. Meanwhile, arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed to his joining and fully cooperating with the investigation."
8. Subsequently, another co-accused Prabhu Narayan Singh also approached this Court for anticipatory bail by filing Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 795 of 2023 (Prabhu Narayan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others), which was rejected by this Court, vide order dated 24.01.2023. For ready reference, the order dated 24.01.2023 is extracted herein under:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.B.Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking bail in anticipation of arrest of the accused-applicant in F.I.R. dated 11.02.2015 registered as Case Crime No. 65 of 2015, under Sections 218, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station - Jagdishpura, District - Agra.
The accused-applicant was posted as Head Clerk in jail. In the year 2005-06 some posts of Jail Guard (Bandi Rakshak) were advertised. Several candidates who were otherwise ineligible to be appointed were appointed by manipulation of their marks on the basis of forged and fabricated Sport Certificate. During the course of investigation, the accused-applicant's role has come forth as one of the very accused who were involved in appointing ineligible candidates to the government positions.
Considering the nature of offence, evidence available against the accused-applicant, this Court does not deem it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail and finding no merit, the appeal is accordingly dismissed."
9. Against above order dated 24.01.2023, co-accused Prabhu Narayan Singh preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3724 of 2023 (Prabhu Narayan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others), before the Supreme Court in which, an interim order dated 29.03.2023 was passed by the Apex Court. For ready reference, the order dated 29.03.2023 is extracted herein below:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners.
2. Issue notice, returnable on 12.05.2023.
3. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to serve the Standing Counsel for the respondent-State through dasti process.
4. Tag with SLP(Crl.) No. 1273/2023.
5. Meanwhile, arrest of the petitioners shall remain stayed.
6. However, in the event of taking cognizance, the petitioners shall appear before the Trial Court."
10. Another co-accused Devendra Singh also approached this Court for anticipatory bail by filing Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 11648 of 2022 (Devendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others), which was rejected by this Court, by a detailed order dated 13.02.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 9591 of 2022 (Mahesh Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others). The same reads as under:-
"1. Heard Sri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the accused-applicants in all the petitions as well as Sri Ratnendu Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused record.
2. The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in anticipation of his arrest in relation to F.I.R. dated 11.02.2015 registered as Case Crime No. 65 of 2015, under Sections 218, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. and Section 13(1)d & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Jagdishpura, District Agra.
3. The present applicants were employed in Central Jail, Agra at the relevant time. Mahesh Kumar Verma, Kailash Chand and Devendra Singh were working as Clerks whereas the accused-petitioner, naemly, Bhagwan Singh was Jailer.
4. A recruitment process for the post of Jail Guard for Central Jail, Agra was initiated in the year 2005-06. Complaints were received regarding several irregularities and illegalities committed in the recruitment process of the Jail Guards. The Government, therefore, vide order dated 28.12.2007 passed order for initiating an enquiry in respect of the recruitment of Jail Guards in Central Jail, Agra taken place in the year 2005-06. The Vigilance Department found that the then Jailer, in connivance with and criminal conspiracy of several accused, recruited several candidates by giving marks for Sports Certificate and manipulating the marks given in the interviews and altering the marks given at the time of interviews. The role of three Clerks who are the accused petitioners along with the Jailer, has been investigated. It is alleged that the present accused petitioners were fully involved cutting, manipulating, overwriting and destroying the original selection list. It is also said that the accused petitioners had been instrumental in exchanging the documents of the candidates. After investigating the offence, charge sheet has been submitted against the accused petitioners under Sections 218, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. and Section 13(1)d & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
5. Sri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the accused applicants submits that insofar as the role of three accused petitioners being Clerk is concerned, they have no role in preparing the merit list and whatever merit list was received by them, it was uploaded by them. He submits that there being no role of these three accused and there having no evidence in support of the allegation against them, their anticipatory bail applications are liable to be allowed. Sri Singh, learned counsel for the accused petitioners further submits that insofar as the accused petitioner, namely, Bhagwan Singh is concerned, his role was confined only to sending the application forms for appointment on the post of Jail Guards and he was also not involved in preparing the merit list or giving marks to the candidates.
6. The police has carried out a detailed investigation and the allegation is of criminal conspiracy for committing the offence for which charge sheet has been filed. The question as to whether the accused petitioners have played any role or have been instrumental in preparing the forged merit list; cutting and destroying the evidence etc. is subject matter of trial but looking into charge sheet wherein it has been specifically said that the accused petitioners were involved in cutting, manipulating and destroying the original merit list, this Court does not find that it is a case where the accused petitioners may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The Court bears in mind the fact that public employment cannot be snatched from meritorious candidates by manipulating the record and making the whole recruitment process a farce. The merit of the candidates has to be respected. This case is of a serious nature where the eligible candidates have been denied the public post whereas the ineligible candidates have got recruited allegedly in connivance with and criminal conspiracy of the accused applicants and other co-accused. In view thereof, I do not find that it is a case where the accused petitioners may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
7. Therefore, their anticipatory bail applications are rejected.
8. However, it is provided that if the accused-applicants surrender before the concerned trial court within ten days from today and apply for bail, their bail applications shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
The party(ies) shall file self attested computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad and the concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing."
11. Against above order dated 13.02.2023, co-accused Devendra Singh preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3203 of 2023 (Devendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others), in which, the interim order dated 21.03.2023 was passed by this Court. For ready reference, the order dated 21.03.2023 is extracted herein under:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Issue notice.
3. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to serve the respondent-State through dasti process.
4. Tag with SLP(Crl.) No. 1273 of 2023.
5. We have been informed that the investigation is complete and the charge sheet has been filed.
6. In this view of the matter, arrest of the petitioners shall remain stayed."
12. Ultimately, above-mentioned Special Leave Petition to Appeal were disposed off finaly vide order dated 12.05.2023 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1273 of 2023 (Satish Chand Vs. State of U.P. and Another). The same is extracted herein under:-
"Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1273/2023.
1. Exemption Applications are allowed.
2. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General appearing for Respondents - State of U.P. at a considerable length and after carefully perusing the material available on record, including the counter affidavit filed by the State, the interim order dated 27.01.2023 passed by this Court staying arrest of the petitioner is made absolute, subject to the condition that he shall continue to appear before the Trial Court on regular basis and any absence on his part shall be taken as a misuse of concession of bail.
3. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 3203/2023 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 3407/2023:
1. Exemption Applications are allowed.
2. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Advocate General appearing for Respondents - State of U.P. at a considerable length and after carefully perusing the material available on record, including the counter affidavit filed by the State, the interim order dated 21.03.2023 passed by this Court staying arrest of the petitioners is made absolute, subject to the condition that they shall continue to appear before the Trial Court on regular basis and any absence on their part shall be taken as a misuse of concession of bail.
3. The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 3724/2023, 3218/2023 & 3227/2023:
1. Exemption Applications are allowed.
2. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Advocate General appearing for Respondents - State of U.P. at a considerable length and after carefully perusing the material available on record, including the counter affidavit filed by the State, the interim order dated 29.03.2023 passed by this Court staying arrest of the petitioners is made absolute, subject to the condition that they shall continue to appear before the Trial Court on regular basis and any absence on their part shall be taken as a misuse of concession of bail.
3. The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of."
13. Another co-accused Om Prakash Yadav preferred Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8991 of 2023, before this Court, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 20.05.2024. Aforementioned order was passed taking into consideration the various interim orders/final orders passed by Apex Court as noted herein above. However, for the sake of coherency order dated 20.05.2024 is also reproduced herein under:-
"1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I appearing for the State and perused the record.
3. This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Om Prakash Yadav, seeking anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Case Crime No. 65 of 2015, under Sections 218, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., Section 13(1)(D), 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station- Jagdishpura, District- Agra till conclusion of trial of the present case before the trial court.
4. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 18.12.2023 which was extended on various dated till 05.4.2024. Subsequently on 3.5.2024 the same was not extended since there was no appearance on behalf of the applicant.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. It is submitted that implication of the applicant in the present matter is during investigation after which charge sheet was submitted against him and other accused persons. It is submitted that co-accused Satish Chand approached this Court by filing a Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 354 of 2023, which was rejected vide order dated 11.1.2023 passed by another Bench of this Court, copy of the said order is annexure no. S.A.-1(page no. 7) to the supplementary affidavit dated 21.4.2024. It is further submitted that against the said order the said accused preferred a Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1273 of 2023 ( Satish Chand vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another) in which vide order dated 27.1.2023 arrest of the petitioner was directed to be stayed by the Apex Court, copy of the order is annexed at page no. 8 to the said supplementary affidavit. The said order reads as under:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Issue notice, returnable within six weeks.
3. Meanwhile, arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed subject to his joining and fully cooperating with the investigation."
6. It is submitted that subsequently even the other co-accused person Prabhu Narayan Singh preferred a Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3724 of 2023 against the order dated 24.1.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 795 of 2023 passed by this Court in which arrest was stayed by the Apex Court vide order dated 29.3.2023, copy of the said order is annexed at page no. 12 to the said supplementary affidavit. The said order reads as under:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Issue notice, returnable on 12.05.2023.
3.Liberty is granted to the petitioners to serve the Standing Counsel for the respondent ? State through dasti process.
4. Tag with SLP(Crl.) No.1273/2023.
5. Meanwhile, arrest of the petitioners shall remain stayed.
6. However, in the event of taking cognizance, the petitioners shall appear before the Trial Court."
7. It is further submitted that another co-accused Devendra Singh approached the Apex Court through Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3203 of 2023 against the order dated 13.2.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 11648 of 2022, in which his arrest was also stayed vide order dated 21.3.2023. The said matter had come up after filing of the charge sheet, copy of the same is annexed at page no. 14 of the said supplementary affidavit. The order passed therein reads as under:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Issue notice.
3. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to serve the respondent ? State through dasti process.
4. Tag with SLP(Crl.)No.1273 of 2023.
5. We have been informed that the investigation is complete and the chargesheet has been filed.
6. In this view of the matter, arrest of the petitioners shall remain stayed."
8. It is submitted that the said Special Leave Petitions were connected together and were finally decided on 12.5.2023 and the interim orders passed therein made absolute. The leading case is Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1273 of 2023. Copy of the same is annexed at page nos. 15 to 17 of the said supplementary affidavit. The said order reads as under:-
"Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.1273/2023:
1. Exemption Applications are allowed.
2. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General appearing for Respondents ? State of U.P. at a considerable length and after carefully perusing the material available on record, including the counter affidavit filed by the State, the interim order dated 27012023 passed by this Court staying arrest of the petitioner is made absolute, subject to the condition that he shall continue to appear before the Trial Court on regular basis and any absence on his part shall be taken as a misuse of concession of bail.
3. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.3203/2023 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.3407/2023:
1. Exemption Applications are allowed.
2. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Advocate General appearing for Respondents ? State at a considerable length and after carefully perusing the material available on record, including the counter affidavit filed by the State, the interim order dated 21.03.2023 passed by this Court staying arrest of the petitioners is made absolute, subject to the condition that they shall continue to appear before the Trial Court on regular basis and any absence on their part shall be taken as a misuse of the concession of bail.
3. The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS.3724/2023, 3218/2023 & 3227/2023:
1. Exemption Applications are allowed.
2. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Advocate General appearing for Respondents ? U.P. at a considerable length and after carefully perusing the material available on record, including the counter affidavit filed by the State, the interim order dated 29.03.2023 passed by this Court staying arrest of the petitioners is made absolute, subject to the condition that they shall continue to appear before the Trial Court on regular basis and any absence on their part shall be taken as a misuse of the concession of bail.
3. The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of."
9. It is submitted that as such the applicant is also entitled to anticipatory bail.
10. Learned A.G.A. could not dispute the arguments as aforesaid.
11. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records and the orders of the Apex Court, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the applicant Om Prakash Yadav, in the aforesaid case crime number, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his 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:-
(i) the applicant shall make himself available on each and every date fixed in the matter by the court concerned.
(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.
(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.
12. In case, the applicant does not co-operate in the proceedings of the trial, this order shall stand automatically recalled/vacated and the applicant shall be taken into custody, forthwith.
13. Further, in default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.
14. The court concerned shall not be prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.
15. The present anticipatory bail application is disposed of.
16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
14. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicants contends that the case of present applicants is similar and identical to aforementioned co-accused, who have been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail application by Apex Court as well as this Court. There is no such distinguishing feature, on the basis of which, the case of present applicants could be so distinguished from aforementioned co-accused, who have already granted the benefit of anticipatory bail so as to deny them anticipatory bail. It is thus urged that in view of above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the various orders passed by this Court as well as Apex Court in favour of co-accused, the benefit of anticipatory bail is also liable to be extended in favour of present applicants.
15. Even otherwise, applicants are men of clean antecedents inasmuch as they have no criminal history to their credit except the present one. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted on 27.12.2022. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicants stands crystallized. However, up to this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicants during the pendency of trial. Moreover, the custodial arrest of applicants is not absolutely necessary during the pendency of trial. On the above premise, it is thus urged that applicants are liable to be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. In case, the benefit of anticipatory bail is granted in favour of applicants, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
16. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that since applicants are named/charge sheeted accused, therefore, they do not deserve any indulgence by this Court. As such, these applications for anticipatory bail are liable to be rejected. However, he could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial nor could he distinguish the case of present applicants from other co-accused, who have been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. As such, the learned A.G.A. could not be dislodged the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicants with reference to the record at this stage.
17.Having heard, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made, complicity of accused and coupled with the fact that some of the co-accused have been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court as well as the Apex Court, prima-facie there is no such distinguishing feature in the case of present applicants, on the basis of which, the case of present applicants could be so distinguished from aforementioned co-accused, who have already been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail so as to deny them anticipatory bail, the clean antecedents of applicants, the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. i.e. charge sheet has already been submitted on 27.12.2022, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized, yet in spite of above, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, there is nothing on record to show that custodial arrest of applicants is absolutely necessary during the pendency of trial, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 5), therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present applications for anticipatory bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicants have made out a case for anticipatory bail.
18. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail applications are allowed.
19. In the event of arrest of the present applicants involved in the aforesaid case crime number, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-
(i) the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by the police as and when required;
(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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) the applicants would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.
(iv). the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the concerned Court.
20. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.
21. The Court concerned shall not be prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail applications of the applicants.
22. With the aforesaid directions, these anticipatory bail applications stand finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 2.7.2024 Vinay