Rajbali Prajapati and Another v. State of U.P. . and Another

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11991 of 2023 Applicant :- Rajbali Prajapati And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. . And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Pratap Rao Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶2This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicants - Rajbali Prajapati and Sheshnath Prajapati in connection with Case Crime No.34 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC, Police Station Gola, District Gorakhpur.

¶3An altercation took place between the informant and named accused persons and they made an assault upon the informant / injured and he was also assaulted with the aid of lathi by co-accused Ratnesh Rai in which he sustained injuries. F.I.R. was lodged on 29.1.2022 and now charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter.

¶4It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of their arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. They have been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. The investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed the matter. It is further submitted that although skull fracture has been found in the medical report of the injured / informant Abhishek Rai, but a specific role of assault with the aid of lathi to the injured has been assigned to co-accused Ratnesh Rai. It is further submitted that the I.O. has not submitted the charge-sheet against the main accused. Only a general role of assault has been assigned to the present applicants. It is further submitted that the applicants have been cooperative during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that after submission of charge-sheet, no custodial interrogation is required in this matter from the applicant. The offences alleged against the applicants are punishable with the imprisonment upto a maximum period of seven years. It is further submitted that the applicants have no criminal history to their credit. It is also submitted that earlier an Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. - 16533 of 2023 was moved by the applicants, but that was dismissed by this Court vide order dated

12.5.2023 without granting any protection to the applicants. It is also submitted that the applicants are father and son. In case the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶5Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, but however could not dispute this factual aspect that the main accused Ratnesh Rai has been exonerated by the I.O. and no charge-sheet has been submitted against him.

¶6The offences alleged against the applicants are punishable with the imprisonment for a maximum period of seven years. Applicants have been cooperative during the course of investigation. They are having no criminal antecedents to their credit. No custodial interrogation is required in this matter.

¶7Although charge-sheet has been submitted in the present matter, but in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial. It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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, likelihood 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.

¶8Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants 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 applicants till end of the trial in the matter.

¶9The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶10In the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of the trial on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available before the court concerned on the date fixed in the matter;

(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 / her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶11In case of default of any of the conditions, same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicants. Order Date :- 2.11.2023 ss High Court of Judicature at Allahabad