Jatin Juneja v. State of U.P

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 20305 of 2021 Applicant :- Jatin Juneja Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised. Rejoinder affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶2Heard Sri Atul Verma, Advocate holding brief of Sri Akash Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shakil Ahmad, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶3The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case No.18057 of 2018 (State Vs. Jatin Juneja) arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No. 222 of 2016, under Section 63 of Copyright Act, Police Station Nauchandi, District Meerut, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶4Admittedly, the applicant was granted interim protection vide order dated

04.01.2022 and he has not misused it.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has apprehension of his arrest. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has further stated that no FSL report has been fetched by the Investigating Officer as FIR was instituted in the year 2016 and nine years have passed since then. The final report (charge-sheet) has been submitted in the matter.

¶6Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶7On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶8Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶9Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.

¶10In the event of arrest of the applicant, Jatin Juneja involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory 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 applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii. that 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; iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶11In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶12It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. (Justice Krishan Pahal) Order Date :- 18.10.2023 Siddhant High Court of Judicature at Allahabad