Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:35974
Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 868 of 2024
Applicant :- Sunder Yadav Alias Shyamod Prakash And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Singh,Shivam Yadav,Udai Bhatia
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Piyush Dubey
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
1. Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State apprised the Court that he has received instructions in the present matter, therefore, the instant anticipatory bail application may be disposed of on merit.
2. Supplementary affidavit file today on behalf of applicant is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Imran Khan, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Piyush Dubey, learned counsel for informant.
4. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 326 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, , 307, 352, 386, 388, 427, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Pachokhra, District Firozabad, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
5. FIR of the present case was lodged against applicants and four others and according to the FIR, due to property dispute, applicants alongwith other accused persons made assault and due to assault made by them, informant and his father sustained internal injuries.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that entire allegation made against the applicants is totally false and actually due to property dispute they have been made accused in the present matter alongwith other accused persons and admittedly it is a case of no injury.
7. He further submitted that during investigation, applicants filed
1
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 22953 of 2017 against FIR of the present case and this Court on 30.10.2017 stayed the arrest of applicants and others till submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
8. He further submitted that after submission of the charge sheet, applicant again knocked the door of this Court by filing Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 5215 of 2018 and on 13.03.2018 an interim order was passed in favour of the applicants but on 09.08.2023, application filed by them was dismissed with a direction that if applicants appear before the court concerned within three weeks and apply for bail then their bail applications shall be decided by the court concerned in accordance with law.
9. He further submitted that order dated 09.08.2023 passed by this Court does not bar the applicants to seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Vinod Kumar Sharma and another Vs. State of U.P. and another 2021 SCC Online SC 3225.
10. He further submitted that now charge sheet has been submitted and there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicants. He further submitted that applicants are having apprehension that if they will appear before the court concerned then they will be sent to jail. He further submitted that applicants are not having any previous criminal history.
11. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that applicants violated the order dated 09.08.2023 and in spite of specific direction given by this Court they did not appear before the court concerned to get regular bail but both the counsels could not dispute the fact that it is a case of no injury and during investigation arrest of the applicants was stayed.
12. Learned AGA, however, further pointed out that applicant no. 1 was earlier made accused in a case relates to provisions of Wild Life Protection Act but he fairly conceded the fact that in that case, applicant no.1 has been acquitted.
13. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.
14. From the record, it reflect that after submission of the charge sheet, applicants filed Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the charge sheet and initially an interim order was passed in their
2
favour but on 09.08.20218 their application was dismissed by this Court with a direction that if applicants appear before the court concerned and apply for bail then their bail applications shall be decided in accordance with law but it appears that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, applicants instead of appearing before the court concerned applied for anticipatory bail but their anticipatory bail application was dismissed by the court concerned.
15. In view of the observation made by the Apex Court in case of
Vinod Kumar Sharma and another(supra) the instant anticipatory bail application is maintainable even after the order dated 09.08.2023 passed by this Court.
16. As far as merit of the case is concerned, admittedly it is a case of no injury and during investigation, arrest of the applicants was stayed by this Court and after submission of the charge sheet, custodial interrogation of the applicants does not appear to be necessary. Further, apprehension of custody raised by applicants cannot be completely ruled out.
17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial.
18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed.
19. In the event of arrest of the applicants, Sunder Yadav Alias Shyamod Prakash and Vishnod Yadav involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-
i. that the applicants shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
ii. that 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
iii. that the applicants shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;
iv. that the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the
3
trial;
v. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
vi. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
20. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicants.
21. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 28.2.2024 KK Patel
4
Comments