Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 15620 of 2021
Applicant :- Saurabh Bhatnagar
Opposite Party :- State Of Uttar Pradesh Through Secretary (Home) Government
Counsel for Applicant :- Aarushi Khare
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Present application has been filed by the applicant, namely, Saurabh Bhatnagar invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. stating therein that he reasonably apprehends his arrest by the police for having committed a non-bailable offence registered vide Case Crime No. 0222 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Prem Nagar, District Jhansi.
It is germane to point out here that 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., 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.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that present incident has arisen out of matrimonial discord between husband and wife and it is alleged that the applicant had gone from Shyopur to Jhansi at his in-law's place and demanded additional dowry in the shape of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-.
Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are cooked up and concocted, which have been levelled just with an intention to drag the applicant in criminal court.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has not been convicted by any court of law. He has further submitted that the applicant shall render all co-operation and assistance to the investigative Authorities in carrying out the investigation. He has further submitted that there is no possibility of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the evidence. The applicant is ready to furnish a personal bond and reliable sureties.
Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed implicit reliance upon the decisions reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and another and (1994) 4 SCC 260 Joginder Kumar vs State of U.P. and others.
Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has submitted that looking to the seriousness and gravity of the offence, the applicant is not entitled for indulgence of this Court.
Looking to the facts of the case and submissions made, a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant is made out pending investigation.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court directs that in the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime number, he shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer till the submission of report under Section 173(2) CrPC by the Investigating Officer subject to the following conditions 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 u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C.
In the event, the applicant breaches or attempts to breach any of the aforesaid conditions or willfully violates 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.
Learned A.G.A. shall file counter affidavit soon after submission of report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. or 90 days, whichever is earlier.
The instant protection will continue till the submission of charge sheet or 90 days, whichever is earlier.
List this anticipatory bail application after two months before appropriate Court.
Order Date :- 22.9.2021 Nadim
Digitally signed by RAJIV GUPTA Date: 2021.09.22 17:53:12 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad