Sanjeev Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12626 of 2023 Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pranav Tiwary,Jitendra Rana,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶1Heard 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. 91 of 2019, under sections 60(1) of UP Excise Act and Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC, P.S. Khair, District Aligarh, during the pendency of trial.

¶3In short, allegations set out in the FIR is that a team of excise officials on the basis of the information raided the country made liquor shop of the applicant but found the liquor sold at the shop perfectly legal along with the proper licence and documentation. Thereafter, the team of excise officials along with co accused persons/salesman present on the shop raided the store located next to the liquor shop of the applicant and it was there they found the illegal liquor.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after the FIR, the lilcence of the applicant's shop has been cancelled by the competent authority and later on the same has been reinstated by the competent authority. It is further submitted that the co accused/Salesman have been granted regular bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal history.

¶5It is further submitted that applicant has been roped on the basis of the confessional statement of co accused persons/sales man. It is further submitted that applicant had earlier approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 30741 of 2019 in which he has been granted anticipatory bail till submission of charge sheet and now the charge sheet has been filed and there is no need of custodial interrogation. The applicant is having definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time. There is no criminal history of the applicant.

¶6Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said facts.

¶7Hence 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.

¶8In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant Sanjeev Kumar involved in the aforesaid 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:-

(1) 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; and

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

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

(4) 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.

(5) 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.

(6) 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.

¶9In 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.

¶10With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 28.11.2023 RavindraKSingh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad