Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 18277 of 2021 Applicant :- Mahesh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Pandey,Manu Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Karuna Nand Tiwari
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for first informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.165 of 2020, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 308 and 325 I.P.C., Police Station- Thuthibari, District Maharajganj with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.
It has been argued by the 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 was submitted that FIR has been lodged against five accused persons including applicants and that only general role of assaulting the injured has been attributed to all the accused persons. No specific role has been assigned to applicants. As per injury report, injured Krishna has sustained two injuries, out of which, one is shown simple in nature and that regarding injury no.2 bone fracture was shown. As per injury report of injured Deependra, four injuries of complaints of pain have been shown and that as per x-ray report, only tissue fracture in right temporal bone has been shown. It has been submitted that regarding same incident a cross FIR was lodged from the side of applicants vide crime no. 166/2020, against injured persons of this case and others for offences under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 352, 452, 427 IPC. Learned counsel has referred site-plan of the spot and submitted that in fact the alleged incident took place opposite to the house of the applicants and all these facts show that first informants' party was aggressor. It was also stated that anticipatory bail application of co-accused Kanhaiya and two others was not rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on merits, rather it was rejected on the ground that charge-sheet has been submitted. It has further been submitted that applicants have no criminal antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicants so far. It was also submitted that applicants undertake to co-operate during investigation and trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for first informant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail and argued that applicants are named in FIR and that both the injured persons have sustained injuries including fractures.
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, 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 principles 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 applicants- Mahesh and Dinesh 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/court below concerned with the following conditions :-
(i) the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) the applicants 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/her/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 :- 17.12.2021 Neeraj