Allahabad High Court
Lekhraj And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. on 22 July, 2022
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4057 of 2022 Applicant :- Lekhraj And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Bahadur Singh,Shashank Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Ms. Vijeta Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
By means of present anticipatory bail application, the applicants have shown their apprehension of arrest in Case Crime No. 0121 of 2017 u/s 147, 307, 323, 354, 392, 452, 504, 506 IPC and section 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Kosikalan, District Mathura. It has been submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case as they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution in the F.I.R.
It has further been submitted that the F.I.R. in question has been lodged pursuant to the order passed by learned court concerned u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 18.3.2017. Further, after investigation the police filed final report as no credible evidence had been found against the applicants. Thereafter, a protest application has been filed on behalf of informant / complainant on such protest application the learned court below has passed order dated 18.11.2021 and summoned all accused persons taking cognizance of section 147, 307,323, 354, 392, 452, 504, 506 IPC, & section 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Kosikalan, District Mathura.
Ms. Vijeta Singh has submitted that in the entire F.I.R. no motive has been attributed to the present applicant. General allegations of beating up has been leveled. No medical examination of injured person on the side of informant / complainant has been conducted. She has further submitted that even if the allegations of the F.I.R. are taken on its face value, in that case it emerges that the main dispute of the informant / complainant and her side was with one Bhajan Lal not with the present applicants. The present applicants are only known to such Bhajan Lal and only for that reason they have been implicated falsely.
She has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure no. 10 which is anticipatory bail order given to the co-accused Urmila and another by the learned court below itself. She has also drawn attention of this Court towards order dated 19.7.2022 passed by this Court granting anticipatory bail to Bhajan Lal and Digambar @ Lala. Learned counsel has further submitted that the present applicants shall cooperate with the proceedings pending before the learned court below and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but could not dispute the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant, contents of F.I.R., the fact that all the named accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail and the undertaking of the applicants that they shall cooperate with the proceedings pending before the learned court below, I find it appropriate that the liberty of the present applicants may be protected till conclusion of proceedings pending before the court below.
Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is allowed.
Therefore, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicants- Lekhraj, Dalchand and Dauji shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority/ court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. that the applicants shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
2. 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;
3. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
4. that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant;
5. that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
6. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
7. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
8. that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
.
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Order Date :- 22.7.2022 Om.