Allahabad High Court
Shivesh Srivastava vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 3 January, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:511 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3104 of 2023 Applicant :- Shivesh Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lalit Kishore Pandey,Amitabh Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
1. Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter, including upto date case diary, and charge-sheet in this case has been filed.
2. Heard Mr. Lalit Kishore Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3.This application has been moved by the accused/applicant-Shivesh Srivastava for anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.0823 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506 and 307 IPC read with Section 7 of The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Sections 66 and 67 of the Information Technology Act lodged at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication. Significantly, the FIR of this case has not been lodged by any aggrieved person and the same has been lodged by a sub-inspector of police after allegedly seeing a video wherein two injured persons were shown to have been assaulted by the applicant and other co-accused persons. It is vehemently submitted that the applicant is juvenile in conflict with law and having regard to the Full Bench decision rendered by this Court in leading CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8361 of 2020 (Mohammad Zaid Vs. State of U.P. and another) dated 24.05.2023 whereby the anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the juvenile in conflict with law was held to be maintainable. It is further vehemently submitted that general role has been assigned to all the accused persons named in the FIR as well as in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, including the two injured persons and no grievous injury has been caused to any of the injured persons and, therefore, the invocation of Section 307 IPC is in doubt. It is further vehemently submitted that the applicant is not having any criminal history and during the course of investigation he had approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.8791 of 2022 and vide order dated 28.11.2022 till the next date of listing or till submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC, whichever is earlier, the liberty of the applicant was protected, however, now charge-sheet has been submitted by the police and the applicant has cooperated thoroughly with the investigating officer and, it is on account of this, the charge-sheet has been filed without making any effort to apprehend the applicant.
5. It is further submitted that the applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial also and will remain present before the trial Court as and when required and, he will not seek any adjournment when the prosecution witness would be in attendance. It is lastly submitted that there is no criminal case pending against the applicant. It is further submitted that identically placed co-accused - Anshuman Singh has been granted anticipatory bail by the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 26.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CrPC No.984 of 2023 and there is no apprehension that after being released on anticipatory bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.
6. Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicant but could not refute the submission made on behalf of the applicant with regard to the fact that anticipatory bail filed by the identically placed co-accused person has been allowed by the coordinate bench of this Court.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that on approaching this Court by filing a petition the liberty of the applicant was protected. The charge-sheet has now been filed in this case. Nothing has been brought on record by the State which may suggest that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation. It is undertaken by the applicant that he shall remain present before the trial Court as and when his presence would be required and shall not seek any adjournment especially when the prosecution witness would be in attendance. The applicant is not having any criminal history and all the injuries sustained are stated to be of simple nature.
8. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra : (2011) 1 SCC 694, Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1 and in Siddharth v. State of UP : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 615, protection from arrest may be granted to the applicant.
9. In result, the anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant- Shivesh Srivastava is hereby allowed and it is provided that in the event of arrest of the applicant in the above-mentioned case or on his appearance before trial Court within 20 days from today, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions:-
(i). The applicant, if not arrested earlier, shall appear before the trial court within 20 days from today and cooperate in the trial and shall not seek any adjournment when the prosecution witness would be in attendance.
(ii). In case of further investigation or re-investigation the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and make himself available as and when required by the Investigating officer of the case, even for the recovery of any fact.
(iii). The applicant shall not make any attempt to influence the prosecution witnesses and will also not commit any crime during his release on anticipatory bail.
(iv). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and specially when the prosecution witnesses are present in court.
(v). The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
10. If in the opinion of the trial court default of any of the condition placed above is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and shall proceed against him in accordance with law.
11. It is clarified that all the observations contained in this order are only for disposal of this anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial proceedings in any manner.
12. This anticipatory bail application is allowed accordingly.
Order Date :- 3.1.2024 MVS/-