Monu Nagar v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10939 of 2023 Applicant :- Monu Nagar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Singh Dahiya,Anshul Pathak,Purnendu Bajpai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

¶2This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant-Monu Nagar in connection with Case Crime No. 486 of 2022 under sections 420, 507 IPC, P.S. Hapur Dehat, District-Hapur.

¶3On the basis of some sale deed allegedly executed in favour of the present applicant and other co-accused persons the accused persons were trying to evict the complainant from her house and also trying to take forcible possession over the property. The informant is a widow lady and a will in respect of the whole property had already been executed by the previous owner Smt. Kamlesh Sharma in favour of her two grand sons on 7.10.2017. FIR was lodged on 29.10.2022 and investigation started. Now the charge sheet has been submitted.

¶4It has been submitted 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. It is further submitted that the property in question was sold by the Manoj Kumar Sharma, the husband of the informant in favour of co-accused persons including the present applicant on 2.9.2019. The applicant and other accused persons are the owner of the property in question on the basis of the registered sale deed but however, the complainant is still in possession of the same. It is further submitted that no effort to take forcible possession on the property in question was made by the present applicant. It is further submitted that during course of investigation he has been cooperative with the I.O. Charge sheet has been filed under Section 420, 504 I.P.C. and the offence is punishable with an imprisonment for maximum period of seven years. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶5Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but however could not dispute the factual aspect which has been shown by the applicant.

¶6In the present case the charge sheet has been submitted. During investigation notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. was issued to the applicant, which was never misused by him. After submission of the charge sheet no custodial interrogation is required. The matter appears to be of civil nature.

¶7Although the charge sheet has been submitted in this 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.

¶8It 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.

¶9It 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, 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.

¶10Hence, considering 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 conclusion of trial in the matter.

¶11The anticipatory bail application is allowed accordingly.

¶12In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, 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 the Court concerned with the following conditions :- i. 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 or tamper with the evidence. ii. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. iii.The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. iv.The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶13In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicant in accordance with law. Order Date :- 9.11.2023 Fhd High Court of Judicature at Allahabad