High Court · 2025

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. Instant application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the accused-applicant on anticipatory bail in Criminal Case No. 136 of 2019, Case Crime No. 291 of 2018, under Sections 323, 354A & 392 IPC, Police Station Cantt, District Faizabad. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 21.10.2024, the following order was passed:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The instant application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with the prayer to release them on anticipatory bail in Criminal Case No. 136 of 2019, Case Crime No. 291 of 2018, under Sections 323, 354A & 392 IPC, Police Station Cantt, District Faizabad. Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that initially Sections 323 and 354A IPC were imposed upon the present applicants, wherein they applied for bail and trial court has granted bail. He next added that after investigation, Sections 392 and 452 of IPC have also been added, though there is no cogent piece of evidence, so far as the aforesaid Sections have been added. He submits that the applicants have no previous criminal history as is mentioned in Paragraph 28 of the anticipatory bail application. He further submits that the police again is raiding the house of the applicants and there is apprehension that the police will arrest the applicants in the aforesaid criminal case. Thus, the applicants are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid. In view of the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the applicants have already been enlarged on bail under Sections 323, 354A of IPC and later on Sections 392 and 452 of IPC have been added. Further, there is no any evidence that the applicants have ever been misused the liberty of bail. The learned counsel for the applicants has also submitted that there is apprehension that the police will arrest the applicants. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, this Court find it to be a fit case of anticipatory bail. List/put up this matter on 12.11.2024. By that date, learned counsel for the State shall file the counter affidavit. Till the next date of listing, the present applicants, namely, Mannu @ Manoj @ Manoj Kumar and Arvind @ Arvind Kumar shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on their furnishing personal bonds and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that 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; (iii) that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that in case chargesheet is submitted, the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; (v) that the applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi) that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail. " From perusal of the order dated 21.10.2024, it transpires that State counsel has failed to demonstrate that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on an interim anticipatory bail after thorough considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to substantiate that the present applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceedings. In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Mannu @ Manoj @ Manoj Kumar And Another till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (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 leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Mohd. Sharif MOHAMMAD SHARIF MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. Instant application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the accused-applicant on anticipatory bail in Criminal Case No. 136 of 2019, Case Crime No. 291 of 2018, under Sections 323, 354A & 392 IPC, Police Station Cantt, District Faizabad. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 21.10.2024, the following order was passed:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The instant application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with the prayer to release them on anticipatory bail in Criminal Case No. 136 of 2019, Case Crime No. 291 of 2018, under Sections 323, 354A & 392 IPC, Police Station Cantt, District Faizabad. Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that initially Sections 323 and 354A IPC were imposed upon the present applicants, wherein they applied for bail and trial court has granted bail. He next added that after investigation, Sections 392 and 452 of IPC have also been added, though there is no cogent piece of evidence, so far as the aforesaid Sections have been added. He submits that the applicants have no previous criminal history as is mentioned in Paragraph 28 of the anticipatory bail application. He further submits that the police again is raiding the house of the applicants and there is apprehension that the police will arrest the applicants in the aforesaid criminal case. Thus, the applicants are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid. In view of the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the applicants have already been enlarged on bail under Sections 323, 354A of IPC and later on Sections 392 and 452 of IPC have been added. Further, there is no any evidence that the applicants have ever been misused the liberty of bail. The learned counsel for the applicants has also submitted that there is apprehension that the police will arrest the applicants. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, this Court find it to be a fit case of anticipatory bail. List/put up this matter on 12.11.2024. By that date, learned counsel for the State shall file the counter affidavit. Till the next date of listing, the present applicants, namely, Mannu @ Manoj @ Manoj Kumar and Arvind @ Arvind Kumar shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on their furnishing personal bonds and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that 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; (iii) that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that in case chargesheet is submitted, the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; (v) that the applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi) that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail. " From perusal of the order dated 21.10.2024, it transpires that State counsel has failed to demonstrate that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on an interim anticipatory bail after thorough considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to substantiate that the present applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceedings. In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Mannu @ Manoj @ Manoj Kumar And Another till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (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 leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Mohd. Sharif MOHAMMAD SHARIF MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench