Ram Surat Pandey v. State of U.P. and another), wherein, vide order dated

2. Heard Sri Anurag Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was initially granted interim anticipatory bail in the present matter vide order dated 17.05.2023. It is submitted that the counter affidavit of the State and rejoinder affidavit to the same has been filed and there is nothing on record to show that the applicant has not co- operated in the trial and has violated any condition of the order granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 15 of the rejoinder affidavit.

4. Learned counsel for the State has been heard who could not dispute the arguments as aforesaid.

5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 17.05.2023 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The said order reads as under:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Ram Surat Pandey , seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0020 of 2016, under Sections - 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C., and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station - Cantt., District - Faizabad.

3. Put up this case on 26.07.2023, in the additional cause list before the appropriate Bench. By the said date, counter affidavit be filed by learned A.G.A.

4. At the outset, reliance has been placed on an earlier decision of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 6789 of 2020 (Ram Surat Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and another), wherein, vide order dated 06.10.2020, the applicant had been granted anticipatory bail during the investigation.

5. Then, it has been submitted, there is no allegation of the applicant having not cooperated in the investigation. Merely because charge sheet has been submitted, the anticipatory bail granted to the applicant earlier has come to an end. Relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and Ors.; Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr., (2020) 5 SCC, followed in Dr. Rajesh Pratap Giri Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.; Criminal Appeal Nos. 272-273 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 693-694 of 2020), vide order dated 05.03.2021, it has been submitted, the applicant is entitled to the continuance of the anticipatory bail granted earlier. At present, no real apprehension has been expressed by the State of the applicant fleeing from justice, if the present application is allowed.

6. While the bail application has been opposed by learned AGA.

7. Thus, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to interim anticipatory bail in this case, at this stage.

8. In the event of arrest of the applicant - Ram Surat Pandey, involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on interim anticipatory bail till the next date fixed, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned OR of the court concerned on the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer/by the court as may be the case. (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 him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. (iv) In default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant."

6. There is nothing reported in the counter affidavit of the State regarding non co- operation of the applicant in the trial. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.

7. Since the applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 17.05.2023, the same is hereby made absolute during the period of trial for the reasons as given in the said order on his furnishing a fresh personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall make himself available on each and every date fixed in the matter by the court concerned. (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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court. (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 concerned court.

8. In case, the applicant does not co-operate in the proceedings of the trial, this order shall stand automatically recalled/vacated and the applicant shall be taken into custody, forthwith.

9. Further, in default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

10. The court concerned shall not be prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

11. The present anticipatory bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Anurag Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was initially granted interim anticipatory bail in the present matter vide order dated 17.05.2023. It is submitted that the counter affidavit of the State and rejoinder affidavit to the same has been filed and there is nothing on record to show that the applicant has not co- operated in the trial and has violated any condition of the order granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 15 of the rejoinder affidavit.

4. Learned counsel for the State has been heard who could not dispute the arguments as aforesaid.

5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 17.05.2023 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The said order reads as under:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Ram Surat Pandey , seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0020 of 2016, under Sections - 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C., and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station - Cantt., District - Faizabad.

3. Put up this case on 26.07.2023, in the additional cause list before the appropriate Bench. By the said date, counter affidavit be filed by learned A.G.A.

4. At the outset, reliance has been placed on an earlier decision of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 6789 of 2020 (Ram Surat Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and another), wherein, vide order dated 06.10.2020, the applicant had been granted anticipatory bail during the investigation.

5. Then, it has been submitted, there is no allegation of the applicant having not cooperated in the investigation. Merely because charge sheet has been submitted, the anticipatory bail granted to the applicant earlier has come to an end. Relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and Ors.; Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr., (2020) 5 SCC, followed in Dr. Rajesh Pratap Giri Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.; Criminal Appeal Nos. 272-273 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 693-694 of 2020), vide order dated 05.03.2021, it has been submitted, the applicant is entitled to the continuance of the anticipatory bail granted earlier. At present, no real apprehension has been expressed by the State of the applicant fleeing from justice, if the present application is allowed.

6. While the bail application has been opposed by learned AGA.

7. Thus, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to interim anticipatory bail in this case, at this stage.

8. In the event of arrest of the applicant - Ram Surat Pandey, involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on interim anticipatory bail till the next date fixed, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned OR of the court concerned on the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer/by the court as may be the case. (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 him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. (iv) In default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant."

6. There is nothing reported in the counter affidavit of the State regarding non co- operation of the applicant in the trial. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.

7. Since the applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 17.05.2023, the same is hereby made absolute during the period of trial for the reasons as given in the said order on his furnishing a fresh personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall make himself available on each and every date fixed in the matter by the court concerned. (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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court. (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 concerned court.

8. In case, the applicant does not co-operate in the proceedings of the trial, this order shall stand automatically recalled/vacated and the applicant shall be taken into custody, forthwith.

9. Further, in default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

10. The court concerned shall not be prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

11. The present anticipatory bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad