High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8051 of 2022 Applicant :- Rehana Begum And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sudarshan Singh Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for first informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.88/2013, under Sections 380/448/352/504/506/143 I.P.C., Police Station Cantt, District Varanasi with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.
Legal Reasoning
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. According to prosecution version, the first informant has purchased the disputed property from one Raisa Begum and obtained possession of the same but the applicants have broken lock of her house and committed theft of several household articles and also put their own lock on the said premises. Learned counsel submitted that the informant was never in possession of the disputed property and that in fact the owner of the said property was one Raisa Begum, who has sold the disputed property to the applicants by way of agreement to sell and possession was also given to the applicants but as said Raisa Begum did not execute the sale- deed, thus, the applicants have filed a suit for specific performance. It was submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and matter is pending before this Court in second appeal. It is further submitted that during investigation, the arrest of applicants was stayed by Division Bench of this Court till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC and after submission of charge-sheet, the applicants have filed an application under Section 482 CrPC, wherein by order dated 29.05.2013, it was directed that no coercive action shall be taken against applicants, however, later on the said interim order could not be extended further, thus, in view of law laid down in case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in AIR 2018 SC 2039, the trial court has started proceedings against applicants and issued non-bailable warrants. Investigation is already complete and that applicants have never misused the liberty of bail. It is further submitted that applicants have applied for anticipatory bail before the concerned Session Court in the month of January, 2022, but later on the concerned court of Magistrate has issued process under Section 82 CrPC against applicants and thus, in view of law laid down in case of Suresh Babu vs. State of U.P. and Another (Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s. 438 CrPC No. 3532 of 2022 ), decided on 16.07.2022 and Manish Yadav vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 CrPC No.4645 of 2022), decided on 14.07.2022, the instant application for anticipatory bail is maintainable. It was further submitted that applicant no.1 is a 68 years old lady and applicant no.2 is unmarried daughter of applicant no.1. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. The applicants undertake to co-operate during trial and they would appear as and when required by the Court. It has been stated that in case, applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that applicants have grabbed the property of informant and that process under Section 82 CrPC has already been executed against the applicants and thus, in view of law laid down in case of Jugal Kishor vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. (A.B.A. No.4868 of 2020), decided on 12.10.2020, the instant application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. In view of law laid down in case of Suresh Babu (Supra), it cannot be said that instant application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration. In the instant case, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the applicants- Rehana Begum and Rushi @ Mohiba in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions :- 1. The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. 2. The applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. 3.The applicants shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. 4. The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected. 5. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicants in accordance with law. Order Date :- 27.9.2022 Neeraj Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.10.01 12:18:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad