Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 14337 of 2021 Applicant :- Jeeshan Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Avinash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
The anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Jeeshan Chaudhary, seeking anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Case Crime No. 172 of 2021, under Sections 379, 411 IPC and 2/3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station Chilkana, District Saharanpur.
Prior notice of this 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 thus 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 applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is the owner of the truck in question on which it is alleged that washed sand was loaded and was being transported. It is argued while placing supplementary affidavit dated 22.07.2021 that the said truck was carrying valid consignment for which a tax invoice was issued by the plant and was also having a Transit Pass for processed mineral issued by MDL which was valid at the time when the truck was apprehended. It is argued that the driver of the truck has been arrested when the truck was apprehended. The applicant was not present at the place when the truck was apprehended. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 10 of the affidavit in support of anticipatory bail application.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and argued that the applicant is named in the First Information Report.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the owner of the truck. He was not present at the time when the truck was apprehended.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of accusation, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.
In the event of arrest of the applicant, Jeeshan Chaudhary involved in Case Crime No. 172 of 2021, under Sections 379, 411 IPC and 2/3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station Chilkana, District Saharanpur, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties (one of the sureties of the applicant will be his family member and the other to be of local person) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police office as and when required;
(ii) the applicant 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 office;
(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.
The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.
The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 20.12.2021 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)