Allahabad High Court
Khairun Nisha vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 July, 2022
Author: Suresh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6397 of 2022 Applicant :- Khairun Nisha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G. A. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
This anticipatory bail application has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Case Crime No.75 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 504, 506, 452, 308 IPC, Police Station- Kolhui, District -Maharajganj.
Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and she has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. He further submitted that the applicant was not arrested. The Investigating Officer without collecting cogent and credible evidence filed charge sheet against the applicant. The applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigation. Cognizance order was passed by the trial court. The case is pending at the stage of summoning of the applicant. Further submission is that the applicant therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant, hence, the applicants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director, AIR 2021 Supreme Court 4154.
Learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail to the applicant.
I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aman Preet Singh (Supra), the Court has observed as under:
"10. Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170 Cr.P.C., the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail.
11. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."
In Aman Preet Singh (supra), the Court has clearly held that if a person, who is an accused in a non-bailable/cognizable offence, was not taken into custody during the period of investigation, in such a case, it is appropriate that he may be released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, particularly seeing the fact that earlier the applicants were granted anticipatory bail by considering all the facts by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and also seeing the fact that the applicants have not misused the liberty of bail and they have fully cooperated and participated in the investigation, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicants.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicant- Khairun Nisha, be released on bail by the trial Court till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and, two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned with the following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law;
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation;
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code; and
(iv) 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. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of her bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 21.7.2022 Anuj Singh