Mukta Prasad v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13068 of 2023 Applicant :- Mukta Prasad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Heard Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶3The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.171 of 2007, registered under Sections 363 and 366 IPC at Police Station-Musanagar, District Kanpur Dehat with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶4As per prosecution story, the brother of the applicant Dinesh in collusion with the other co-accused persons is stated to have enticed away the minor sister of the informant on 20.11.2007.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is alleged in the FIR that the victim had taken alongwith her golden ornaments weighing 50 grams and Rs.5,000/- cash. The victim is a consenting party and is stated to be living in Rajasthan with the brother of the applicant. The applicant and other co-accused persons had filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.21659 of 2009 and the proceedings were stayed vide order dated

14.9.2009 and later on the said petition was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 24.11.2021.

¶6Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicant had no knowledge of the said dismissal of petition for want of prosecution. There is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant has committed the said offence. The said dismissal of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not on merits rather it has been dismissed for want of prosecution. Several 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. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶7Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶8On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶9In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant-Mukta Prasad be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(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 the previous permission of the court;

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted 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;

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶10It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial. Order Date :- 28.11.2023 Ravi Kant (Krishan Pahal, J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad