Roop Kishor v. State of U.P

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 20220 of 2021 Applicant :- Roop Kishor Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anand Pati Tiwari Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present.

¶2Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Yogesh Mishra, 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.672 of 2021, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC at Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District Etah with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant was granted interim protection by this Court vide order dated

07.01.2022 and he has not misused the said opportunity granted earlier.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the allegations against the applicant are per se false. He is title holder of the land. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on annexure no.2 filed with the anticipatory bail application, whereby the applicant was the title holder of the said land in the year 2021. 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.

¶6Per 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.

¶7On 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.

¶8In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant-Roop Kishor 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.

¶9It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial. Order Date :- 30.11.2023 Ravi Kant (Krishan Pahal, J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad