Ramesh Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12320 of 2023 Applicant :- Ramesh Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Rao Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶1Heard Mr. Sushil Kumar Rao, 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 No.104 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.150 of 2017, under Sections 60 (2), 63 of U.P. Excise Act, Sections 272 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Ahirauli Bazar, District Kushinagar.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant in fact no such incident has taken place as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant is owner of Saboni Brick Kiln where recovery of 300 liters of liquor in 15 gallons containing 20 liters each, 2 quintal gud and 2 kilograms of Nausadaar has been made. He further submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The arrested persons have also no affiliation with the applicant. During investigation, police arrested two accused persons in their confessional statement, the complicity of the applicant has been shown. The arrested accused persons are also not labourers of brick kiln of the applicant but the investigating officer without appreciating all aspects has submitted charge sheet against the applicant and other two arrested co-accused persons and the court below has taken cognizance but till date no proceeding under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. has been initiated against the applicant. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.2552 of 2021, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.2.2021 giving protection to the applicant to appear before the court below within 30 days and apply for bail in view of the settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. He further submits that prima facie no alleged offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 24 of the affidavit. He further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶4Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶5Hence 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

¶98The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶6In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant-Ramesh Sharma, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial 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:-

(i) 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.

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

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

(iv) 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.

(v) 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.

(vi) 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.

¶7In 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.

¶8With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of. Order Date :- 29.11.2023 Ajeet High Court of Judicature at Allahabad