Vipin Bihari Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12831 of 2023 Applicant :- Vipin Bihari Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anjani Kumar Shahwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Heard Sri Alok Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.P. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶3This is the second anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 109 of 2006, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Mathura, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail. His first anticipatory bail application was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated

30.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.11138 of 2023.

¶4As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have filed a restoration application before the Consolidation Officer-I, Mathura as Case No.569 & 539 of 1993-94 on the basis of a fake power of attorney dated 02.04.1990, as such, the FIR was instituted against the applicant and other co-accused persons.

¶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 nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has further stated that the informant is an Advocate by profession and he has misused his clout. The applicant had filed a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.28328 of 2007 before this Court challenging the final report (charge-sheet) whereby the proceedings were stayed by this Court vide order dated 04.01.2008 but the same has been vacated in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. and Another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2018 (16) SCC 299. The said petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is still pending as is evident from the status report filed as Annexure No.12 of the affidavit annexed with the anticipatory bail application.

¶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. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. 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. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶8Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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 Bihari Sharma 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 :- 22.11.2023 Siddhant High Court of Judicature at Allahabad