Vipin Kumar Tomar v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12124 of 2023 Applicant :- Vipin Kumar Tomar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sukrampal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jai Prakash Singh Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶2Heard Sri Sukrampal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jai Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶3The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No.188 of 2023, under Sections-506, 420, 120B, 195, 211 of IPC and Section-67A of Information Technology Act, Police Station-Ramala, District-Baghpat with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶4As per prosecution story, the named accused persons Yashpal, Poonam and Rajeev are stated to have threatened to the informant that he shall get them implicated in criminal cases. Already there was a dispute regarding the property which was erected by Yashpal on land belonging to pond.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has apprehension of his arrest. He has not been named in the F.I.R. He has been implicated on account of him being brother of co-accused person Yashpal, who has long criminal antecedents. He used to do pairvi, as such he is implicated in this case. Another Case Crime No.317 of 2022 has also been assigned to the applicant, although he was not named in the said F.I.R. The applicant has complied with the provisions of section-41A Cr.P.C.

¶6Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶7On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that brother of the applicant Yashpal, has long criminal antecedents of 29 cases, across several States and the applicant is the member of said gang, who gets frivolous F.I.R.s instituted through ladies Soni and Ruby. Learned counsel has placed reliance of 10 F.I.R.s, all instituted by the two ladies against several persons, as such the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶8Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the applicant has criminal history of one case in which he is not named coupled with the fact that a person cannot be sent behind bars on account of criminal history of his brother and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶9Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.

¶10In the event of arrest of the applicant-Vipin Kumar Tomar involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:- i. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii. that 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; iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶11In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶12It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. (Justice Krishan Pahal) Order Date :- 17.11.2023 Saif High Court of Judicature at Allahabad