Prashant @ Titu v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11590 of 2023 Applicant :- Prashant @ Titu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶2Apprehending his arrest, the present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Prashant @ Titu in Case Crime No.483 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 338, 436, 427, 341, 298, 120-B I.P.C., Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, Police Station Karhal, District Mainpuri, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶3It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. He has been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. The investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed. The applicant has been cooperative during the course of investigation. He has not been declared proclaimed offender by the trial court. No process under sections 82, 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant. It is further submitted that co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 25.8.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.8563 of 2023. No custodial interrogation is required in this matter from the applicant. Applicant has no criminal antecedents and as such he is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶4Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail

¶5Although charge-sheet has been submitted in the 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 controversy finally by holding 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.

¶6Hence, 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 end of the trial in the matter.

¶7The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶8In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of the trial 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 make himself available before the court concerned on the date fixed in the matter;

(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 / her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(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.

¶9In case of default of any of the conditions, same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 19.10.2023 ss High Court of Judicature at Allahabad