Ashok Pal v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8522 of 2023 Applicant :- Ashok Pal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Ranjan Tripathi 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 record. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶2This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Ashok Pal seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0463 of 2023, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Bilhaur, District-Kanpur Nagar.

¶3One agreement to sell was executed by co-accused Shivnath in favour of the informant in 2015 wherein the limitation for execution of sale deed was settled as 6 months and the present applicant appeared as a witness in that agreement to sell, however, subsequently the sale deed was executed by co-accused Shivnath to another persons for the same property and the present applicant again appeared as a witness in the sale deed. FIR was lodged on

28.9.2022 and investigation started, which is going on.

¶4It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on in the matter. It is further submitted that since the agreement to sell was executed in 2015 wherein the limitation period was fixed as 6 months but after a lapse of about 6 years the informant did not get the sale deed executed after paying the remaining consideration amount and the validity of agreement to sell came to an end, the co-accused Shivnath executed a sale deed of the said property to another person. Since the agreement to sell was not effective and operational, the present applicant stood as surety to the sale deed. It is further submitted that the applicant is not the vendor or vendee in the alleged sale deed, he has not received any consideration amount and is cooperating with the investigation having one solitary case, which has been explained by him. It is further submitted that the disputes relates to civil nature and the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶5Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but however could not dispute this factual aspect that the limitation period of agreement to sell was fixed as 6 months.

¶6In this matter the applicant is only the witness in the agreement to sell.

¶7In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held 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, llikelihood 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.

¶8In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶9Considering 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 filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶10The application is allowed accordingly.

¶11In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

(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 office.

(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.

¶12In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 1.11.2023 Fhd High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad