Suneel Kumar v. State of U.P.), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No
Case Details
Cited in this judgment
Heard Mr. Shri Prakash Dwivedi, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Anurag Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for first informant. These applications for anticipatory bail have been filed by applicants-Ramesh Jaiswal and Nathuni Prasad in connection with Case Crime No.58 of 2022, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Robertsganj, District- sonbhadra. Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 19.1.2019, a belated F.I.R. dated 19.1.2022 was lodged by first informant Suman Devi, which was registered as Case Crime No.58 of 2022, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Robertsganj, District- Aonbhadra. In the aforesaid F.I.R. nine persons namely, Niranjan, Mahajan @ Nathuni, Patalu, Kanhaiya @ Mochu, Babundar,Sitaram, Ramesh @ Raju, Daroga Patel @ Ramnarayan, Ramadhar have been nominated as named accused. In brief according to the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. it is alleged that a registered agreement to sale was executed on 19.1.2019 by Sitaram in favour of first informant. The F.I.R. further states that sale consideration was agreed at Rs. 25 lakhs. Rs. 20 lakhs have been paid in cash and Rs. 5 lakhs by way of Cheque No. 103676. However, inspite of receipt of sale consideration, first party namely Sitaram failed to execute sale deed and has and misappropriated the sale amount At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants contends that co-accused Niranjan Singh has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 4.4.2022, passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 2110 of 2022. Same is reproduced herein under: the State-opposite party. "Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. As per the prosecution version, the applicant along with 9 co-accused was arrested on 01.11.2021 on the information of the informant that the applicant and others are involved in leaking out papers of Haryana Staff Selection Commission for the post of Constable, General Duty. False recovery of two mobiles has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The applicant is a student and is preparing for the competitive examinations. Co-accused Suneel Kumar, Mahipal Yadav and Satnam have been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2578 of 2022 (Suneel Kumar v. State of U.P.), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4524 of 2022 (Mahipal Yadav v. State of U.P.) and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 975 of 2022 (Satnam v. State of U.P.) vide orders dated 07.02.2022, 16.02.2022 and 21.02.2022 respectively. The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 01.11.2021 having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from Perused the first information report as well as averments Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the applicant- Vikas Sharma, involved in Case Crime No. 896 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C., Police Station Sector-58 Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject the conditions 1. shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; 2. shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and, the said misuse application. record. liberty. he:
3. shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court." Similarly another co-accused Patalu @ Ghanshyam Bilas has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 16.3.2022, passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 2024 of 2022, which is reproduced hereinunder: P.S.- Agra. District Chhatta, the record. the State and perused "Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. This application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 155 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He next contends that similarly circumstanced co-accused has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1567 of 2022. He further submits that he is not beneficiary of the deed. He further submits that he has himself given the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- to Rahul Sharma, who is beneficiary of the deed. He further submits that there is no other criminal history against the applicant except one case which has mentioned in para 14 of the bail in which he has already been enlarged on bail. He further submit that the applicant has not committed the aforesaid forgery and he is languishing in jail since 25.11.2021. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the investigation. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail and submits that there are specific allegation against the applicant and he has committed the aforesaid offence but he could not dispute the fact that similarly situated co- accused has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, I find that beneficiary of the aforesaid deed is Rahul Sharma and there is no other criminal history against the applicant coupled with the fact that similarly situated circumstanced co-accused has been granted bail, thus, without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering Court. bail. trial. seeking allowed. evidence. accepted. application investigation adjournment. bail applications on behalf of accused persons. In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the Let the applicant- Deepak Sharma @ Deepak Mudgal @ Deep Chad Sharma involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :- i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during (ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. (iv) 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 to any police officer or tamper (v) Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground Any observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned Trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained. " On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicants submits that case of the present applicants is similar and identical to aforesaid co-accused. He, therefore, submits that for the facts and reasons mentioned in the bail orders of aforementioned co-accused, applicants are also liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. There is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which case of present applicants could be distinguished from aforesaid co- accused so as to deny anticipatory bail to applicants. As such, applicants areliable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. It is then contended that occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings is alleged to have occurred on for cancellation of witnesses. bail.
19.1.2019 whereas the F.I.R. in respect of the same was lodged after expiry of three years i.e. on 19.1.2022. Further in the F.I.R.,, the delay in lodging in F.I.R. has not been explained. Placing reliance upon paragraph-8 of the judgement of Supreme Court in P. Rajagopal Vs. State of Tamilnadu, AIR 2019 SC 2866, learned counsel for applicants submits that since delay in lodging the F.I.R. has not been explained, the prosecution of applicants itself cannot be maintained. For ready reference, paragraph-8 of aforesaid judgement is reproduced herein-under:- "8. Normally, the Court may reject the case of the prosecution in case of inordinate delay in lodging the first information report because of the possibility of concoction of evidence by the prosecution. However, if the delay is satisfactorily explained, the Court will decide the matter on merits without giving much importance to such delay. The Court is duty bound to determine whether the explanation afforded is plausible enough given the facts and circumstances of the case. The delay may be condoned if the complainant appears to be reliable and without any motive for implicating the accused falsely. [See Apren Joseph v. State of Kerala, (1973) 3 SCC 114; Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) SCC 1]. 6 In the matter on hand, the entire family of PW1 was at the mercy of Accused No. 1, who was very rich and influential. Accused No.1 acted as a benefactor to the family and had helped them financially and otherwise on multiple occasions. Under such circumstances, PW1 might have been reluctant to lodge a complaint immediately after the occurrence of the said incident, especially when Accused No. 1 had employed his henchmen to keep the house and movements of PW1 and her family under surveillance. Moreover, no material has been brought to our notice by the defence to prove that the delay in filing the F.I.R. was with the intention of false implication. Thus, the explanation given by PW1 for the delay remains untainted. In our considered opinion, looking at the totality of the facts and circumstances, the Trial Court and the High Court were justified in condoning the delay and in concluding that the said delay was not vital to the case of the prosecution." It is then submitted that applicants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated iin above mentioned case crime number. Applicants are not parties to the agreement of sale dated 18.1.2019. As such, no fraud can be alleged to have been pleaded by present applicants. It is then contended that applicants are not the beneficiaries. No proceedings for specific performance of contract or return of money have been initiated by first informant Suman Devi. He submits that from perusal of the F.I.R. it is clearly evident that dispute between parties is purely a civil dispute which has been dragged into criminal litigation. It is next submitted that the F.I.R. giving rise to these applications for anticipatory bail was lodged on 19.1.2022. However, inspite of the fact that a period of more than three months have rolled by from the date of lodging of F.I.R., no Police Report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has been submitted against applicants. Matter is still under investigation. Up to this stage, Police has not collected any such material on the basis of which complicity of present applicants can be said to be established in the crime in question. Applicants have been co-operating with the investigation inasmuch as no co-erchive process has been issued against applicants. As such, custodial arrest of applicants is not absolutely necessary for investigating aforementioned case crime number. Applicants have criminal history but the same has been duly explained in the supplementary affidavit filed in the anticipatory bail of applicant Ramesh Jaiswal. However, irrespective of above, there is eminent threat of applicants being arrested by Police. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicants contends that liberty of applicants be protected by extending the benefit of anticipatory bail in their favour. Per contra,the learned A.G.A and learned counsel for first informant have opposed these applications for anticipatory bail. Having heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State, learned counsel for first informant and upon perusal of record, matter requires consideration. Notice on behalf of opposite party no.1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A. Mr. Anurag Pratap Singh has put in appearance on behalf of first informant. They pray for and are granted four weeks time to file their respective counter affidavits. Applicants will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavits. List for orders after expiry of aforesaid period. In view of above, in the event of arrest, applicants Ramesh Jaiswal and Nathuni Prasad shall be released on ad-interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/ concerned Court with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required; (ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned. (iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. (v) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt. Advocate is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants. The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation, if pending, of the present case in accordance with law, expeditiously, independently without being prejudiced by any observations made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant. The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, if investigation is in progress, who shall ensure the compliance of present order. Order Date :- 25.4.2022 Arshad MAHMOOD Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Heard Mr. Shri Prakash Dwivedi, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Anurag Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for first informant. These applications for anticipatory bail have been filed by applicants-Ramesh Jaiswal and Nathuni Prasad in connection with Case Crime No.58 of 2022, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Robertsganj, District- sonbhadra. Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 19.1.2019, a belated F.I.R. dated 19.1.2022 was lodged by first informant Suman Devi, which was registered as Case Crime No.58 of 2022, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Robertsganj, District- Aonbhadra. In the aforesaid F.I.R. nine persons namely, Niranjan, Mahajan @ Nathuni, Patalu, Kanhaiya @ Mochu, Babundar,Sitaram, Ramesh @ Raju, Daroga Patel @ Ramnarayan, Ramadhar have been nominated as named accused. In brief according to the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. it is alleged that a registered agreement to sale was executed on 19.1.2019 by Sitaram in favour of first informant. The F.I.R. further states that sale consideration was agreed at Rs. 25 lakhs. Rs. 20 lakhs have been paid in cash and Rs. 5 lakhs by way of Cheque No. 103676. However, inspite of receipt of sale consideration, first party namely Sitaram failed to execute sale deed and has and misappropriated the sale amount At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants contends that co-accused Niranjan Singh has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 4.4.2022, passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 2110 of 2022. Same is reproduced herein under: the State-opposite party. "Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. As per the prosecution version, the applicant along with 9 co-accused was arrested on 01.11.2021 on the information of the informant that the applicant and others are involved in leaking out papers of Haryana Staff Selection Commission for the post of Constable, General Duty. False recovery of two mobiles has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The applicant is a student and is preparing for the competitive examinations. Co-accused Suneel Kumar, Mahipal Yadav and Satnam have been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2578 of 2022 (Suneel Kumar v. State of U.P.), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4524 of 2022 (Mahipal Yadav v. State of U.P.) and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 975 of 2022 (Satnam v. State of U.P.) vide orders dated 07.02.2022, 16.02.2022 and 21.02.2022 respectively. The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 01.11.2021 having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from Perused the first information report as well as averments Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the applicant- Vikas Sharma, involved in Case Crime No. 896 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C., Police Station Sector-58 Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject the conditions 1. shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; 2. shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and, the said misuse application. record. liberty. he:
3. shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court." Similarly another co-accused Patalu @ Ghanshyam Bilas has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 16.3.2022, passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 2024 of 2022, which is reproduced hereinunder: P.S.- Agra. District Chhatta, the record. the State and perused "Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. This application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 155 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He next contends that similarly circumstanced co-accused has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1567 of 2022. He further submits that he is not beneficiary of the deed. He further submits that he has himself given the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- to Rahul Sharma, who is beneficiary of the deed. He further submits that there is no other criminal history against the applicant except one case which has mentioned in para 14 of the bail in which he has already been enlarged on bail. He further submit that the applicant has not committed the aforesaid forgery and he is languishing in jail since 25.11.2021. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the investigation. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail and submits that there are specific allegation against the applicant and he has committed the aforesaid offence but he could not dispute the fact that similarly situated co- accused has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, I find that beneficiary of the aforesaid deed is Rahul Sharma and there is no other criminal history against the applicant coupled with the fact that similarly situated circumstanced co-accused has been granted bail, thus, without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering Court. bail. trial. seeking allowed. evidence. accepted. application investigation adjournment. bail applications on behalf of accused persons. In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the Let the applicant- Deepak Sharma @ Deepak Mudgal @ Deep Chad Sharma involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :- i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during (ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. (iv) 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 to any police officer or tamper (v) Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground Any observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned Trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained. " On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicants submits that case of the present applicants is similar and identical to aforesaid co-accused. He, therefore, submits that for the facts and reasons mentioned in the bail orders of aforementioned co-accused, applicants are also liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. There is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which case of present applicants could be distinguished from aforesaid co- accused so as to deny anticipatory bail to applicants. As such, applicants areliable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. It is then contended that occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings is alleged to have occurred on for cancellation of witnesses. bail.
19.1.2019 whereas the F.I.R. in respect of the same was lodged after expiry of three years i.e. on 19.1.2022. Further in the F.I.R.,, the delay in lodging in F.I.R. has not been explained. Placing reliance upon paragraph-8 of the judgement of Supreme Court in P. Rajagopal Vs. State of Tamilnadu, AIR 2019 SC 2866, learned counsel for applicants submits that since delay in lodging the F.I.R. has not been explained, the prosecution of applicants itself cannot be maintained. For ready reference, paragraph-8 of aforesaid judgement is reproduced herein-under:- "8. Normally, the Court may reject the case of the prosecution in case of inordinate delay in lodging the first information report because of the possibility of concoction of evidence by the prosecution. However, if the delay is satisfactorily explained, the Court will decide the matter on merits without giving much importance to such delay. The Court is duty bound to determine whether the explanation afforded is plausible enough given the facts and circumstances of the case. The delay may be condoned if the complainant appears to be reliable and without any motive for implicating the accused falsely. [See Apren Joseph v. State of Kerala, (1973) 3 SCC 114; Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) SCC 1]. 6 In the matter on hand, the entire family of PW1 was at the mercy of Accused No. 1, who was very rich and influential. Accused No.1 acted as a benefactor to the family and had helped them financially and otherwise on multiple occasions. Under such circumstances, PW1 might have been reluctant to lodge a complaint immediately after the occurrence of the said incident, especially when Accused No. 1 had employed his henchmen to keep the house and movements of PW1 and her family under surveillance. Moreover, no material has been brought to our notice by the defence to prove that the delay in filing the F.I.R. was with the intention of false implication. Thus, the explanation given by PW1 for the delay remains untainted. In our considered opinion, looking at the totality of the facts and circumstances, the Trial Court and the High Court were justified in condoning the delay and in concluding that the said delay was not vital to the case of the prosecution." It is then submitted that applicants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated iin above mentioned case crime number. Applicants are not parties to the agreement of sale dated 18.1.2019. As such, no fraud can be alleged to have been pleaded by present applicants. It is then contended that applicants are not the beneficiaries. No proceedings for specific performance of contract or return of money have been initiated by first informant Suman Devi. He submits that from perusal of the F.I.R. it is clearly evident that dispute between parties is purely a civil dispute which has been dragged into criminal litigation. It is next submitted that the F.I.R. giving rise to these applications for anticipatory bail was lodged on 19.1.2022. However, inspite of the fact that a period of more than three months have rolled by from the date of lodging of F.I.R., no Police Report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has been submitted against applicants. Matter is still under investigation. Up to this stage, Police has not collected any such material on the basis of which complicity of present applicants can be said to be established in the crime in question. Applicants have been co-operating with the investigation inasmuch as no co-erchive process has been issued against applicants. As such, custodial arrest of applicants is not absolutely necessary for investigating aforementioned case crime number. Applicants have criminal history but the same has been duly explained in the supplementary affidavit filed in the anticipatory bail of applicant Ramesh Jaiswal. However, irrespective of above, there is eminent threat of applicants being arrested by Police. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicants contends that liberty of applicants be protected by extending the benefit of anticipatory bail in their favour. Per contra,the learned A.G.A and learned counsel for first informant have opposed these applications for anticipatory bail. Having heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State, learned counsel for first informant and upon perusal of record, matter requires consideration. Notice on behalf of opposite party no.1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A. Mr. Anurag Pratap Singh has put in appearance on behalf of first informant. They pray for and are granted four weeks time to file their respective counter affidavits. Applicants will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavits. List for orders after expiry of aforesaid period. In view of above, in the event of arrest, applicants Ramesh Jaiswal and Nathuni Prasad shall be released on ad-interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/ concerned Court with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required; (ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned. (iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. (v) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt. Advocate is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants. The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation, if pending, of the present case in accordance with law, expeditiously, independently without being prejudiced by any observations made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant. The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, if investigation is in progress, who shall ensure the compliance of present order. Order Date :- 25.4.2022 Arshad MAHMOOD Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad