Mayank Singh Baghel v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11674 of 2023 Applicant :- Mayank Singh Baghel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shraddha Singh,Atul Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant 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. 82 of 2023, under sections 379, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, P.S. Pipari, District Sonbhadra, during the pendency of investigation.

¶3At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has apprehension of arrest in the above mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that co accused persons, namely, Rishal Kumar Gupta, who is the owner of the vehicle in question and Prabhash Kumar Singh @ Prabhat, who has given forged documents, have been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 25.09.2023 and

15.09.2023 passed in Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application No. 10191 of 2023 and 10100 of 2023. It is further submitted that co accused Mangru Singh has also been enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated

25.7.2023 passed in Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application No. 31360 of 2023. The case of the applicant stands on identical footing, hence the applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is having definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time.

¶4Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said facts.

¶5Hence 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.

¶6In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant Mayank Singh Baghel involved in the aforesaid crime 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 the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

(1) 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;

(2) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

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

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

(5) 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.

(6) In case, the applicants misuse 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 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 their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶7In 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.

¶8With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 1.11.2023 RavindraKSingh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad