Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 15422 of 2021 Applicant :- Girraj Kishor Agarwal And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Tripathi 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, Girraj Kishor Agarwal, Smt. Ramvati, Piyush Agarwal, Anand Kishor Agarwal invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. stating therein that he reasonably apprehends his arrest by the police for having committed a non-bailable offence registered vide Case Crime No. 139 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 328 IPC, Police Station Kamla Nagar, District Agra.
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 at the very out set submitted that he does not want to press the bail application on behalf of applicant nos. 1 and 2.
In view of statement made by learned counsel for the applicants, the instant anticipatory bail application on behalf of applicant nos. 1 and 2 stands dismissed as not pressed.
So far as applicant nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court towards statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., in which she has categorically stated that at the time of administering poison to the victim, neither applicant no. 3 nor applicant no. 4 were present and the said poison was administered by father-in-law, mother-in-law, Jeth-Manoj Goyal and Husband-Brij Mohan. He has further submitted that victim has not assigned any role to applicants nos. 3 and 4.
Perusal of the record shows that the prayer for anticipatory bail has already been rejected by the court below vide its order dated 28.7.2021.
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 are 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 nos. 3 and 4 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 each to the satisfaction of arresting officer till the submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., 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-applicant to remain available to him for the purposes of interrogation and the accused-applicant is 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-applicant would not leave the State of Uttar Pradesh without informing the Investigating Officer of the case and sharing his 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 violate above conditions or abstain 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.
Learned A.G.A. shall file counter affidavit soon after submission of report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. or 90 days, whichever is earlier.
The instant protection would continue till the submission of charge sheet or 90 days, whichever is earlier.
List this anticipatory bail application after two months before appropriate Court.
Order Date :- 23.9.2021 Ravi Prakash