Raju @ Jay Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6209 of 2023 Applicant :- Raju @ Jay Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Verma,Swithin Subhashish Lawrence Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1Heard Sri Prashant Verma, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri D.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶2The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Session Trial No. 26 of 2014, arising out of Case No. 48 of 2010, under Section 395 IPC, Police Station Alau, District Mainpuri, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶3As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have robbed the informant to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- and ornaments on

19.4.2010 at about 8.00 pm by entering his house.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has the apprehension of his arrest. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has next stated that the complaint case has been filed on 3.5.2010 after a delay of about 14 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has also stated that the said summoning order dated 29.3.2014 is cryptic and without application of mind. The present complaint case is a counterblast to the application moved by the applicant against the informant and his family members on 29.3.2010 before the Court of Civil Judge (Upper Division), Mainpuri, which was registered as O.S. No. 213 of 2010.

¶5Several 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 antecedents. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶6On 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.

¶7On due consideration to 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.

¶8Without 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.

¶9In the event of arrest of the applicant, Raju @ Jay Pratap Singh 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;

¶10In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶11It 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 :- 26.10.2023\Shalini High Court of Judicature at Allahabad