Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 18702 of 2021 Applicant :- Mohammad Azad Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard over anticipatory bail application, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., moved by the applicant- Mohammad Azad, in Case Crime No.186 of 2021, under Sections-307, 353, 427 I.P.C. Police Station-Kalwari, District-Basti.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number because of being owner of the truck; no offence under Section 307 is made out; applicant is owner of the truck concerned; he was not apprehended on spot; his driver was apprehended who has been granted regular bail by the Sessions Court itself; there is apprehension of arrest by police in this case crime number hence application for anticipatory bail was filed before the Sessions Court, where it was summarily rejected; hence this anticipatory bail application with above prayer.
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., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned AGA as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed, but could not oppose the above factual aspects.
Having heard and gone through material placed on record and from the perusal of the First Information Report, it reveals that it was got lodged against the driver of the truck, bearing registration No. UP 44 AT 7373; name of the driver was not known to the informant; applicant has been made accused because of being owner of the truck; identification of the driver has yet not been got conducted.
Considering all those facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98, but, without commenting on the merits of the case, ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
In case of arrest, the applicant, Mohammad Azad, is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in above case crime number, till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent court on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each of like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of police station/ court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required, if investigation is in progress;
(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 such person from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country 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/Court concerned;
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Government Advocate is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
The Investigating Officer will continue with the investigation, if it is in progress and will not be affected by this order.
A copy of this order shall also be produced before the S.P/S.S.P concerned by the applicant, within a week, if the investigation is still in progress, who shall ensure compliance of this order.
With the aforesaid observation this application is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 21.12.2021 Deepak/