Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 16456 of 2021 Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar @ Alok Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Muktesh Kumar Singh,Rakesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Muktesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 01.10.2021 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The said order is quoted herein below:-
"1. Heard Shri Muktesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A and perused the record.
2. The instant application is being moved by the applicant namely, Sanjeev Kumar @ Alok invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. that he has every reason to believe that he may be arrested on the accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence in connection with Case Crime no.138 of 2020, under Section 363, 366, 120B I.P.C. and Section 16/17 POCSO Act, Police Station- Bhogaon, District- Mainpuri.
3. From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court after getting his anticipatory bail rejected from the Court of Sessions vide order dated 29.01.2021.
4. 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., hence, 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.
5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has got no criminal antecedents and he has not undergone any imprisonment after conviction by any court of law in relation to any cognizable offence previously. An assurance was also advanced by learned counsel for the applicant on behalf of the applicant that he would render all requisite co-operation and assistance in the process of law and with the investigating agency and shall not create any hindrance to reach to its logical conclusion and shall not flee from the course of justice.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has strenuously argued that the applicant has been made target just to besmirch his reputation and belittle him in the public estimate by the informant. Number of arguments were advanced by learned counsel for the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the accusation made in the FIR against the applicant by the informant. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgments in the cases of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, [(2014) 8 SCC 273]; Joginder Kumar vs. State of UP & others [(1994) 4 SCC 260] and Sanaul Haque vs. State of UP & another [2008 CrLJ 1998], to buttress his contentions.
7. In this backdrop of legal as well as factual proposition, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is next submitted that applicant has nothing to do with this offence. He is not named even in the FIR. His name was surfaced, first time as role of firing, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Co-accused Ranjana @ Salu, Mithlesh Kumari and Sandeep have already been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 18.03.2021 by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.5258 of 2021.
8. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application by mentioning that though the applicant has got no criminal antecedents, but there is nothing on record to satisfy that the police personnel are after the applicant to arrest him. The alleged apprehension on behalf of applicant is imaginary and unfounded one. Learned AGA has also submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made in the FIR, the applicant is not entitled for any relaxation from this Court.
9. After the close scrutiny of Section 438 Cr.P.C. (UP Act No.4 of 2019) and its relevant clauses, the Court is satisfied that the applicant has made out the case for interim order protecting the liberty of applicant in connection with aforesaid case crime pending investigation.
10. Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways, which may be adversely affect the investigation and subsequent stage of the case, the Court directs that in the even of arrest of the applicant in aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer till the submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer with the condition that :-
(i) the applicant shall make himself 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 purpose of interrogation and the accused-applicant is obliged to abide by such directions.
(ii) the applicant 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 applicant is having his passport, he will have to surrender the same before the concerned SP/SSP of the District till the submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
11. In the event, the applicant breaches or attempts to breach any of the aforesaid conditions or wilfully violate above conditions or abstains himself 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.
12. While entertaining the instant anticipatory bail application before this Court, there is no concrete material on record except the canvassed apprehension of the applicant on his arrest and the severity of accusation made in the FIR against him. After being satisfied on the limited material, the interest/liberty of the applicant is protected by this Court with aforesaid riders during the course of investigation, after recording its nascent satisfaction. However, continuance of instant interim protection or ultimate fate of instant application would be decided, subject to the counter affidavit filed by learned AGA and the material brought on record against the applicant during the investigation.
13. Learned AGA should file counter affidavit soon after submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. or 90 days, whichever is earlier.
14. Life of the instant protection would continue till the submission of charge-sheet or 90 days, whichever is earlier.
15. List this anticipatory bail application after two months before appropriate Court."
Vide order dated 1.10.2021, learned A.G.A. was directed to file counter affidavit in the matter, but no counter affidavit has been filed till today.
Since the applicant has already been granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 1.10.2021, the same is hereby made absolute till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. for the reasons as given in the said order on his furnishing a fresh 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 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 officer;
(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 present anticipatory bail application is allowed.
(Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 20.12.2021 nd