Kunwarpal Singh and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12706 of 2023 Applicant :- Kunwarpal Singh And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shaili Ganguly,Archana Jha,Pragati Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised. Heard Smt. Shaili Ganguly, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶2The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No. 94 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Meerut, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶3At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants have the apprehension of their arrest and have claimed parity with the co-accused Kuldeep, who has already been granted anticipatory bail by another Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 13087 of 2022 vide order dated 11.8.2023. The criminal history of applicant no. 3 stands explained, as proceedings u/s 482 No. 43849 of 2018 have been stayed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the matter has been settled between the parties and already the suit u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by mutual consent. Since the case of the applicants is at par with the co-accused who has already been granted anticipatory bail, the applicants are also entitled for the same on the ground of parity.

¶4The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by learned AGA. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him.

¶5Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Apex Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶6In the event of arrest of the applicants, Kunwarpal Singh, Smt. Kamlesh, Sachin, Smt. Priya, Smt. Jagwati and Omprakash @ Kalu, involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:- i. that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii. that 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; iii. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; iv. that in case, the charge-sheet is submitted, the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶7In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail of the applicants.

¶8It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. (Justice Krishan Pahal) Order Date :- 6.12.2023 Shalini High Court of Judicature at Allahabad