Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 15408 of 2021
Applicant :- Ankit Dwivedi And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Singh
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.
Present application has been filed by the applicants, namely, Ankit Dwivedi and Dhruv Narayan invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. stating therein that they reasonably apprehends their arrest by the police for having committed a non-bailable offence registered vide Case Crime No. 33 of 2021, under Sections 147, 149, 452, 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC, Police Station Lalpura, District Hamirpur.
Perusal of the record shows that the prayer for anticipatory bail has already been rejected by the court below vide its order dated 27.5.2021.
It is further germane to point out here that prior notice of this anticipatory bail application was served in the Office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants are wholly innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.
Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that as many as six persons has been assigned the role of assaulting the victim by lathi, danda and hockey stick. On account of assault made by the applicants Pankaj and Neeraj have suffered injuries on their persons. Injured Pankaj in his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. has pointed out that co-accused Pramod had given a hockey blow causing injuries on his head. Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that co-accused Uttam Kumar and Satya Singh have already been granted bail by coordinate bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 12606 of 2021 and the case of the applicants stands on the same footing as that of co-accused who have already been granted bail.
Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that the applicants have no criminal antecedents and have not been convicted by any court of law. He has further submitted that the applicants shall render all co-operation and assistance to the investigative Authorities in carrying out the investigation. He has further submitted that there is no possibility of applicants fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the evidence. The applicants are ready to furnish a personal bond and reliable sureties.
Learned counsel for the applicants has also placed implicit reliance upon the decisions reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and another and (1994) 4 SCC 260 Joginder Kumar vs State of U.P. and others.
Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that looking to the seriousness and gravity of the offence, the applicants are not entitled for indulgence of this Court.
Looking to the facts of the case and submissions made, a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicants is made out pending investigation.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court directs that in the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid case crime number, they shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer till the submission of report under Section 173(2) CrPC by the Investigating Officer subject to the following conditions that :
(i) The applicants shall make themselves available for the interrogation by the police as and when required. The Investigating Officer of the case would give 48 hours prior notice or telephonically inform the concerned accused- applicants to remain available to them for the purposes of interrogation and the accused-applicants are obliged to abide by such directions.
(ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threats or comments to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the correct facts to the court or to the police officer.
(iii) The Investigating Officer of the case would make all necessary endeavour to gear up the investigation in utmost transparent and professional way and would try to conclude the same within a maximum period of 90 days. During this period the accused-applicants would not leave the State of Uttar Pradesh without informing the Investigating Officer of the case and sharing their contact number.
(iv) In the event the applicants are having their passports, they will have to surrender the same before the concerned SP/SSP of the District till the submission of report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C.
In the event, the applicants breach or attempt to breach any of the aforesaid conditions or willfully violates above conditions or abstains themselves from the investigation, it would be open for the Investigating Officer or the concerned authority to apply before the court of Session for cancellation of interim protection and the Court of Session has every liberty and freedom to revoke the anticipatory bail after recording the reasons for the same.
This criminal misc. anticipatory bail application stands
allowed.
Order Date :- 23.9.2021 KU