Amendra @ Omendra and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11358 of 2023 Applicant :- Amendra @ Omendra And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Sharma,Jata Shankar Pandey,Lavesh Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1Vakalatnama filed today by Shri J.S. Pandey, Advocate for the informant is taken on record.

¶2This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants - Amendra @ Omendra and Deepu @ Deepak seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 442 of 2022, under Sections 323, 354, 427 IPC, Police Station Tajganj, District Agra.

¶3Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶4It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants, who are Dever of the victim, are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. It is further submitted that F.I.R. in this case was lodged belatedly without any plausible explanation regarding delay. There are contradictions in the version of the F.I.R. and in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC. No internal examination of the victim has been performed. Though it has been alleged in the matter that injuries have been inflicted to the victim with the aid of sword and katta but from the perusal of the injury sheets, no injuries of the said weapons have been found over her body. It is a matrimonial dispute. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. No process under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC has been issued against the applicants and the applicants have not been declared absconder. In case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶5Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶6I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶7In this matter, the dispute appears to be matrimonial. It also reveals from the perusal of the record that no internal examination of the victim has been performed. F.I.R. was lodged belatedly without any plausible explanation regarding delay. Though it has been alleged in the matter that injuries have been inflicted to the victim with the aid of sword and katta but from the perusal of the injury sheets it prima facie appears that no injuries of the said weapons have been found over her body. Since charge sheet has been submitted in the matter, no custodial interrogation is required. Applicants have been cooperative during investigation.

¶8Though charge sheet has been submitted in the matter, yet in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial. It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶9Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till the end of trial.

¶10The application is allowed accordingly.

¶11In the event of arrest of the applicants, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available before the Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the trial.

(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 him/her 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.

¶12In case of default of any of the conditions, the same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicants. Order Date :- 13.10.2023 safi High Court of Judicature at Allahabad