Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 18863 of 2021 Applicant :- Shyam Sunder Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satish Pandey, learned State counsel and perused the record.
This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Shyam Sunder, seeking anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Case Crime No. 0341 of 2021, under Sections 366, 406, 120B I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District Maharajganj during the pendency of trial before the court below.
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 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 applicant states that the prayer in the present anticipatory bail application be confined only during the pendency of investigation/submission of police report and he presses the same only.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case which is as per own showing of the first informant she is a married lady and left her house along with jewellery and money. It is argued that the applicant is not involved in the case and the implication of the applicant is with malafide intentions. The first informant/victim has herself in the F.I.R. admitted that she was in some relationship with the applicant since long, after which she got married and even then she was in relationship with the applicant. No date and time of the incident has been mentioned. It is argued that the applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent as stated in para 15.
Learned State counsel opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and argued that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and there are allegations against him.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant and the prosecutrix were in some relationship with each other since long which continued even after her marriage. The prosecutrix left her house with jewellery and money on her own.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of accusation and the fact that he has no criminal antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.
In the event of arrest of the applicant Shyam Sunder, involved in Case Crime No.0341 of 2021, under Sections 366, 406, 120B I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District Maharajganj, he 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 his 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 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 disposed of.
(Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 20.12.2021 Naresh