High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6516 of 2022 Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Jain Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Mishra,Krishan Mohan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail as the accused-applicant is apprehending his arrest during trial in connection with Case No.350 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.296 of 2019, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Etawah Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity. The applicant is a commission agent and supplying cloths to co-accused Yatindra Singh Bhadauriya for the last 10 years. The applicant does not have any business transaction with the deceased, who was having a shop in the basement of the building due to this reason, the name of the applicant has been disclosed in the alleged incident. Further submission is that initially the impugned FIR has been lodged against the applicant and four other co-accused persons under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 302 and 363 IPC in which the role of the applicant has been assigned for inflicting injury to the injured. Further submission is that there is no eye witness of the alleged incident. As per postmortem report, the deceased was died due to asphyxia as a antimortem hanging, which clearly shows that the deceased himself committed suicide. Further submission is that earlier the applicant was granted anticipatory bail till filing of charge sheet by means of Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.29592 of 2019 vide order dated 24.07.2019 copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure No.1 to the affidavit filed in support of application. Further submission is that earlier the co-accused Yatendra Singh Badauriya, who was named in the FIR, was arrested and during investigation, charge sheet has also been filed. Further submission is that during course of trial, the first informant was examined as PW-1, who himself has submitted before the Court that the applicant have no role in the alleged incident, but the Investigating Officer ignoring this fact, without collecting cogent and credible evidence submitted charge sheet against the applicant and other co-accused persons under Section 306 IPC. Further submission is that the applicant has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail and during this period the applicant has not misused the liberty of bail, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant, hence, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial. The applicant is having no criminal history. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director, AIR 2021 Supreme Court 4154. Learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail to the applicant and has submitted that earlier the applicant have got anticipatory bail and during course of investigation charge sheet has been submitted under Section 306 IPC. The offence is serious in nature. Thus, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record. In Aman Preet Singh (supra), the Court has clearly held that if a person, who is an accused in a non-bailable/cognizable offence, was not taken into custody during the period of investigation, in such a case, it is appropriate that he may be released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, particularly seeing the fact that earlier the applicant was granted anticipatory bail by considering all the facts by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and also seeing the fact that the applicant has not misused the liberty of bail and he has fully cooperated and participated in the investigation, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant-Manoj Kumar Jain be released on bail by the trial Court on furnishing a personal bond and, two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law; (ii) the applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation; (iii) in case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code; and (iv) the applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. (v) The accused/appellant shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. (vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned. (vii) 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. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this anticipatory bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 25.7.2022 Ajeet Digitally signed by AJEET KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.07.25 16:57:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad