Vinod Alias Munijar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow and Another

Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2968 of 2023 Applicant :- Vinod Alias Munijar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶1Heard Sri Kamran Anwar, holding brief of Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Ms. Charu Singh, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.

¶2The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 206 of 2023, under Sections 457, 380 IPC, Police Station Ranipur, District Bahraich.

¶3The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 21.10.2023 alleging that a theft had been committed by the named accused persons Vinod alias Munijar (applicant) and Nanke in the night of 26/27.08.2023.

¶4In the affidavit filed in support of the application it has been contended that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. The other co-accused Nanke has been granted anticipatory bail by means of an order dated

21.11.2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bahraich but the applicants application has been rejected for the sole reason that he is involved in another case, namely, Case Crime No. 84 of 2020, under Sections 363 & 366 IPC, Police Station Ranipur, District Bahraich, in which he has already been granted bail.

¶5The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶6Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the incident allegedly took place on 26/27.08.2023 whereas the FIR has been lodged on 21.10.2023 and there is no explanation for the delay, the informant has not disclosed the source of information of the applicant's involvement in commission of theft committed in her absence and that other co-accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail and without making any observations which may affect the outcome of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant during pendency of the trial.

¶7In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant-Vinod Alias Munijar before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of the trial on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:

(i). That the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted;

(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 pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. Order Date :- 20.12.2023 Pradeep/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench