Lakhan Singh @ Layak Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12603 of 2023 Applicant :- Lakhan Singh @ Layak Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicants 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. 139 of 2023, under sections 420, 306, 120-B IPC, P.S. Malawan, District Etah during the pendency of trial.

¶3As per contents of the FIR, informant lodged an FIR against the applicants alleging therein that he had solemnized the marriage of his daughter Seema with the younger son of the applicant no. 1, namely, Amarjeet in the year 2021. It is further alleged that applicant no. 1 had developed illicit relations with her daughter-in-law Pooja and as such transferred his ten bighas of land in her favour and when the said fact of transfer of land came into knowledge of the daughter of the informant and her husband, they objected the same and due to which altercation took place between the applicant no. 1 and younger son Amarjeet and thereafter the applicants shifted to in-laws house of the applicant no. 2 (in Punjab). It is further alleged that the younger son, namely, Amarjeet became too much anxious and committed suicide.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants, are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have apprehension of arrest in the above mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them.It is submitted that applicant no. 1 is father of the victim, applicant no. 2 is elder brother of victim and applicant no. 3 is brother of the victim and the FIR has been lodged by the father-in-law of victim. There is no criminal history of the applicants. The applicants are having definite apprehension that they may be arrested by the police any time.It is further submitted that after the death of the first wife of the younger son of the applicant no. 1, second marriage was solemnized with the daughter of the informant, who used to quarrel with the applicants and her husband from very beginning and her family members/informant's side used to pressurize the applicants and Amarjeet to transfer the property in favour of daughter of the informant and on refusal they used to commit marpeet. It is further submitted that applicants are residents of State of Punjab and they have no concern with the alleged suicide committed by the victim.

¶5Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said facts.

¶6Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicants, they are 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 applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶7In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants Lakhan Sing h@ Layak Singh, Rajesh @ Sonu and Pooja Devi, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on each of them 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:-

(1) The applicants 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;

(2) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

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

(4) The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

(5) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants.

(6) In case, the applicants misuse 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.

(7) The applicants 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 their bail and proceed against them 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 applicants.

¶9With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 24.11.2023 RavindraKSingh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad