Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 20032 of 2021 Applicant :- Vikram Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home At Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
The anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Vikram Chauhan, seeking anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Case Crime No. 759 of 2020, under Sections 386, 507 IPC, Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj.
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 applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that mobile number from which there was a call, does not belong to the applicant; it is of co-accused Anukalp Chauhan. It is argued that the implication of the applicant is without any credible evidence. Even on the phone there was no conversation with the applicant but it is stated that phone had not disconnected and as such the first informant over heard the conversation from other side. It is argued that looking to the facts of the case, the allegations and particularly the fact that the said mobile phone is not of the applicant, the case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of Anukalp Chauhan. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 18 of the affidavit in support of anticipatory bail application.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and argued that the applicant is named in the First Information Report and there are allegations against him but could not dispute the mobile phone was not of the applicant but is of a co-accused Anukalp Chauhan.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the mobile number from which there was a call does not belong to the applicant. The applicant is having no criminal history.
The case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of co- accused Anukalp Chauhan.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of accusation, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.
In the event of arrest of the applicant, Vikram Chauhan involved in Case Crime No. 759 of 2020, under Sections 386, 507 IPC, Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj, 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 office;
(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 anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.12.2021 M. ARIF Digitally signed by Justice Samit Gopal Date: 2021.12.24 17:10:55 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad