Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 19956 of 2021 Applicant :- Satish Pal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
The anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants, namely, Satish Pal, Atul Pal and Guddu @ Sudhir Sonkar in Case Crime No. 302 of 2021, under Sections 147, 188, 283, 332, 336, 341 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station - Line Bazar, District Jaunpur.
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 applicants argued that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the First Information Report has been lodged naming 41 persons and 25-30 unknown persons. It is argued that the implication of the applicants are false and there is no credible evidence of involvement of the applicants in the present matter. It is further argued while placing para 10 of the affidavit that the applicants were not present at the spot where the Highway was obstructed by other persons due to an accident. They have been falsely implicated in the present case by naming them by a persons who are from the other side of their group. It is argued that the applicants have no criminal history as stated in para 17 of the affidavit in support of the anticipatory bail application.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and argued that in so far as the applicant no.3 is concerned he is reported to be involved in six other criminal cases and as such the averment in para 17 is false and incorrect. It is argued that the applicants are named in the First Information Report and there are allegations against them.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the 41 named accused persons and 25-30 unknown persons without any specification of the role. In so far as the applicant no. 3 Guddu @ Sudhir Sonkar is concerned, he is reported to be having criminal history of six cases. Looking to the criminal history of applicant no.3 and his involvement in the present case, the anticipatory bail application is rejected.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application on behalf of applicant no. 3 Guddu @ Sudhir Sonkar is rejected.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of accusation, the applicant No. 1 and 2 namely Satish Pal and Atul Pal are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.
In the event of arrest of the applicants, namely, Satish Pal and Atul Pal in Case Crime No. 302 of 2021, under Sections 147, 188, 283, 332, 336, 341 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, they 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 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 with the following conditions:-
(i) the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police office 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office;
(iii) the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport the same shall be deposited by them 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 applicants.
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 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 applicants.
The applicants are 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 is disposed of.
Order Date :- 22.12.2021 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)