Arvind Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P

Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11740 of 2023 Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prateek Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶1Heard Sri Prateek Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶2Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No. 82 of 2023, under Sections 379, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, Police Station-Pipari, District-Sonbhadra.

¶3Allegation against the applicant is that the applicant was involved in the business of coal, has provided the forged documents to the co-accused to use it as genuine for the purpose of transportation of stolen coal.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant in fact no such incident took place as alleged in the FIR. The applicant is bona fide purchaser. He submitted that the applicant neither stolen coal nor has provided any forged documents to any persons. He submitted that co-accused persons, namely, Rishal Kumar Gupta, who is the owner of the vehicle in question and Prabhash Kumar Singh Alias Prabhat, who has given forged documents, have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide orders dated 25.9.2023 and 15.9.2023 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 10191 of 2023 and 10100 of 2023. The applicant is having no previous criminal history. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶5Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not dispute the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶6Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶7In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant-Arvind Kumar Sharma, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC

98.

(vii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶8In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶9With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands allowed. Order Date :- 27.10.2023 Krishna* High Court of Judicature at Allahabad