Maniram vs. State Of U.P.

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2259 of 2020

Applicant :- Maniram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

Heard Sri Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the allegation against the applicant that essentially the dispute between the parties is civil in nature. It is further argued that the order by which mutation was done in favour of Munni Devi wife of Mohan has now been recalled and revenue record stands in the name Munni Devi wife of Sripal. It is pointed out that the applicant is son of co-accused, Mohan who has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Criminal Misc.Anticipatory Bail Application No.2238 of 2020 today.The matter needs deeper and fairer investigation before any arrest should be given effect to and the applicant will participate and cooperate with the investigation. The applicant has no criminal antecedent to his credit. Therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of accusation and the fact that he has no criminal antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

In the event of arrest of the applicant-Maniram involved in Case Crime No.314 of 2019 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Adampur, District Amroha, he shall be released on anticipatory 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 with the following conditions:-

1. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

2. 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;

3. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

4. that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant;

5. that the investigating officer is directed to conclude the investigation in the present case in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this court while considering or deciding the present bail application of the applicant;

6. that the applicant is directed to produce certified copy of this order before the SSP/SP concerned within 10 days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of the present order;

7. that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

8. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

9. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

10. that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

It is made clear that if the charge-sheet is submitted and cognizance is taken and matter is committed to the court of session, as the case may be, the trial court shall decide the trial preferably within a period of one year from the date of cognizance/ committal of the case to the Court of Sessions.

In view of aforesaid, the application for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, allowed.

Order Date :- 5.3.2020

MN/-