Hari Babu v. State of UP Through Principal Secretary Home Gov. of UP

Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11849 of 2023 Applicant :- Hari Babu Opposite Party :- State Of Up Through Principal Secretary Home Gov. Of Up Counsel for Applicant :- Dwijendra Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶2The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.197 of 2023, registered under Sections 420, 504 and 506 IPC at Police Station-Rajawali, District Firozabad with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶3As per prosecution story, the father-in-law of co accused, namely, Smt. Rajrani is stated to have executed a registered Will deed in her favour on

06.05.2021. The applicant is stated to be the witness of the said Will deed. It is alleged that the said Will deed was a forged document.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is only a marginal witness. The said Will deed is a registered document and there is no possibility of it being forged. Subsequent to it, the father-in-law of co accused, namely, Smt Rajrani had expired on 09.02.2022. The FIR has been instituted subsequent to the death of the father-in-law. Several 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. There is no criminal antecedents of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the order passed in favour of other co accused persons in Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application No. 10181 of 2023 by co-ordinate bench of this Court.

¶5Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said facts.

¶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 Hari Babu involved in the aforesaid 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:-

(1) 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;

(2) 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; and

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

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

(5) 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.

(6) 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.

(7) 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 disposed of. Order Date :- 30.10.2023 RavindraKSingh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad