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

Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8142 of 2023 Applicant :- Motilal Prasad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶1Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, 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.17 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., P.S.- Mail, District-Deoria.

¶3As per allegation, the applicant was posted as Village Development Officer of the village Jogapur, Post Pipra Ramdhar, District-Deoria in the year 2000 and he has manipulated the family register of the said village.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He submitted that at the time of alleged incident, the applicant was posted as Village Development Officer of the village Jogapur, Post Pipra Ramdhar, District-Deoria and at present he is posted as Tubewell Operator in Block Salempur. He submitted that during investigation, a departmental enquiry was conducted by the Project Director Rural Department Authority Deoria and Investigating Officer submitted a report on 21.11.2020 in which the applicant was not found guilty. He submitted that earlier, the applicant has approached this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.19016 of 2021 and co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.11.2021 granted interim protection to the applicant, and thereafter, vide order dated 15.9.2023, the same was dismissed for want of prosecution and being infructuous. He submitted that after submission of charge sheet, the applicant moved anticipatory bail application before the court below concerned and the same was rejected by the court below vide its order dated 19.4.2023, hence the present anticipatory bail application. He submitted that his entire service carrier is spotless. The incident took place in the year 2000 and FIR was lodged in the year 2021 without explanation of delay. 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 applicant. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, she is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant 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 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-Motilal Prasad, 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 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.

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

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

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

(v) 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.

(vi) 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.

(vii) 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 allowed. Order Date :- 3.11.2023 Krishna* High Court of Judicature at Allahabad