Bundu v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10046 of 2023 Applicant :- Bundu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the material available on record. Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of opposite party no.3.

¶2This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant-Bundu in connection with Case No. 358/9 of 2018, under section 406 IPC, P.S. Bhopa, District-Muzaffar Nagar.

¶3An agreement to sale was executed to the applicant in favour of the complainant but subsequently he came to know that the said property has already been sold by the applicant in favour of some other person. A criminal complaint was filed and a summoning order was passed by the Magistrate Court against the applicant to face the trial under Section 406 I.P.C.

¶4It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that the present dispute is absolutely of civil nature although no civil suit is pending between the parties. It is further submitted that no custodial interrogation is required. The applicant is having no criminal antecedents to his credit and he is cooperating with the trial. It is further submitted that the offences levelled against the applicants are punishable with the imprisonment for a maximum period upto seven years. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶5Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶6It reveals from the perusal of the record that no process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant till date and he has cooperated during the investigation.

¶7Although the charge sheet has been submitted in this matter but 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.

¶8It 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.

¶9It 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, llikelihood 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.

¶10Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till conclusion of trial in the matter.

¶11The anticipatory bail application is allowed accordingly.

¶12In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his 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 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 or tamper with the evidence. ii. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. iii.The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. iv.The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶13In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicant in accordance with law. Order Date :- 18.10.2023 Fhd High Court of Judicature at Allahabad