Janki Prasad and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10545 of 2023 Applicant :- Janki Prasad And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Kumar Singh,B.N.Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶2This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.32 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 I.P.C., P.S.- Ata, District-Jalaun.

¶3As per prosecution story, An FIR was lodged by opposite party no.2 Smt. Rajkumari through an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. moved before the court concerned to the effect that her husband died in an accident on

21.11.2019 and after the death of her husband, brother-in-law Rajesh's wife Ranjana inherited the movable and immovable property of her deceased husband. She wants to usurp the property of her deceased husband by posing as his fake wife, hence she has got a fake identity card/Aadhaar card made in the year 2020. It is further alleged that Ranjana, Rajesh, Baladin Janaki Prasad Girja have prepared fraudulent documents and want to take away his property by deceit.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He submitted that the applicant no.1 is father and applicant no.2 is father-in-law of Smt. Ranjana. There is a civil suit is pending between the parties and the present case has been given criminal colour just to harass the applicants. He submitted that during investigation no credible evidence has been found against the applicants of committing any forgery and as such, no criminal case is made out against the applicants. He submitted that earlier, the applicants have approached this Court for anticipatory bail and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

24.5.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.9630 of 2021 granted interim protection to the applicants and thereafter, the aforesaid anticipatory bail application vide order dated 16.9.2022 has been dismissed for want of prosecution and having became infructuous. The applicants are having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 24 of the affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits 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 applicants. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicants, they are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicants is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶6Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicants, they are 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 applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶7In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants-Janki and Baladeen 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 applicants 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 applicants 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 applicants shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

(iv) The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

(v) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants.

(vi) In case, the applicants 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 applicants 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 them 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 applicants.

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