Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8129 of 2021 Applicant :- Harveer Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Badan,Suresh Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicants- Harveer Singh and Vikram in Case Crime No. 244 of 2017, Criminal Case No. 1735 of 2018 under Section 174-A I.P.C., P.S. Iglas, District Alligarh.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that protection order for a period of 30 days or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier was granted by this Court vide order dated 16.10.2017 passed in Application under Section 5310 of 2017. Further submission is that F.I.R. has been registered against the applicants which is in violation of the aforesaid order, therefore it is a case for anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that applicants have no criminal history and applicants are prepared to furnish sureties and bonds, there is no possibility of their either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the evidence.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayed of bail and has submitted that the matter against the applicants is pending for the last more than four years and the process for their appearance has been adopted by the Court below even then, the applicants did not appear before the Court below, thus a case was registered against the applicants. It is further submitted that protection was only for a period of 30 days with an idea that during that period the applicants shall appear before the Court below and move a regular bail application which is very much clear from the order annexed at page 41 of the paper book but neither the regular bail application was moved nor the applicants appeared before the Court below therefore the instant proceedings have been drawn against the applicants. It is further submitted that the applicants are themselves delaying with the trial process and are trying to obstruct the process of Court, hence the anticipatory bail application could not be allowed and is liable to be rejected.
Considering the submissions of both the sides and in view of the facts that the applicants have not appeared before the Court below for the last more than four years, therefore, I do not find any ground for giving benefit of anticipatory bail, hence the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant is rejected.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 S.Ali