Allahabad High Court
Suruj Ram And 14 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 April, 2023
Author: Rajiv Gupta
Bench: Rajiv Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 49 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3910 of 2023 Applicant :- Suruj Ram And 14 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Beerendra Singh Pal,Manoj Kumar Keshari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 66-A of 2006, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 218, 120-B, 34 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Bairia, District Ballia with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.
It has been argued by 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.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that at the relevant time, applicants were working as proprietor of the fair price shop and there is no such evidence that applicants have committed any cheating or forgery or committed any breach of trust. The first information report was lodged against 121 persons including applicants and only general allegations have been levelled that the accused persons including applicants during period between 2002-2005 have misappropriated/ committed breach of trust in respect of food-grains through fair price shops.
Learned counsel for the applicants has referred the facts of the matter and has submitted that there is no credible evidence against the applicants and only general allegations have been levelled. Further, this case was registered on 06.05.2006 and since then, a period of more than 16 years has been passed but the investigation of the case is still going on.
Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that similarly placed co-accused Vishwanath Prasad has already been granted anticipatory bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 CrPC No. 7061 of 2022 vide order dated 29.11.2022.
Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that the applicants are ready to co-operate during investigation and during trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court.
It has been lastly stated that in case, the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.
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, the 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 principle 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 present applicants involved in the aforesaid case crime, 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 Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions :-
(i) the applicants will make themselves available for interrogation by the police as and when required;
(ii) the applicants will 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.
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.
Order Date :- 10.4.2023 Nadim