JUDGMENT : 1. The Court convened through video conferencing. 2. Heard Shri Arvind Kumar Tiwari, the learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Girjesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A.-I for the State. 3. This Court vide order dated 24.01.2022 granted time to the learned A.G.A. to seek instructions in the matter. 4. Today, when the case was taken up, learned A.G.A. informs that inspite of information to the officials concerned, he has not received instructions till date. It appears that the authorities are not interested to furnish any instructions in this matter. 5. The applicant-Ram Prakash Mani Tripathi, has moved the present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail in Case No. 540/2018 (Chet Ram Versus Brijesh Kumar and others), under Section 304 I.P.C., Police Station Ikauna, District Shravasti. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 22.08.2016 Deshraj son of Ram Roop (real brothr of complainant Chet Ram) lodged an F.I.R. against the applicant and other co-accused namely Boudh Prakash, Raman Mani, Vivek Motilal, Dharm Chandra, Manohar Lal, Rudra Narayan, Rahul Mani and Devmani bearing Case Crime No. 1453/2016, under Sections 395, 397, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Ikauna, District Shravasti. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that on 24.08.2016 the complainant has given telephonic information to the police that applicant, Boudh Prakash, Raman Mani, Vivek, Moti Lal, Dharm Chandra, Manohar Lal, Rudra Narayan, Dev Mani and Rahul Mani came to the complainant's house in the morning at 7.00 a.m.. They were armed with Lathi and Danda and beaten his father, namely Ram Roop badly, consequently the father of the complainant died. When the complainant's family member raised the alarm all the accused persons ran away. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that upon the telephonic information the police reached on spot and the dead body of the deceased was sent for post portem examination, in which the autopsy surgeon has opined that the cause of death could not be ascertained, hence viscera was preserved. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that upon the telephonic information the police reached on spot and the dead body of the deceased was sent for post portem examination, in which the autopsy surgeon has opined that the cause of death could not be ascertained, hence viscera was preserved. He further submits that the Investigating Officer of the Case Crime No. 1453/2016 extended Section 304 I.P.C. in the matter, but after receiving the viscera report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, the Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. in case Crime Crime No. 1453/2016 against the applicant and Baudh Prakash, Moti Lal, Dharmchandra, Devi Mani and Rahul Mani and rest of the named accused were not charge sheeted. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that on the application filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. dated 20.12.2016, the Chief Judicial Magistrate Shravasti passed an order for registration of the F.I.R., as a result of which on 07.03.2017, a First Information Report in Case Crime No. 857/2017, under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 120-B I.P.C. has been lodged at Police Station Ikauna, District Shrawasti against the applicant and other co-accused persons. He further submits that the Investigating Officer after recording the statements of the complainant and mother of the complainant and the doctor, who had conducted post-mortem and some independent witness, filed the final report and had denied about happening of any incident on 24.08.2016. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that against the final report, the complainant Chet Ram had filed protest petition, which was treated as complaint case and the same has been registered as Complaint Case No. 540/2018 (Chet Ram Versus Brijesh Kumar and others). 11. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shrawasti vide its order dated 10.10.2019 summoned the applicant and other co-accused persons for facing trial under Section 304 I.P.C. in Complaint Case No. 540/2018 (Chet Ram Versus Brijesh Kumar and others). 12. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that against the summoning order dated 10.10.2019 filed a revision No. 85 of 2019, which was dismissed by the learned Session Judge, Shrawasti vide order dated 25.01.2021. 13. 12. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that against the summoning order dated 10.10.2019 filed a revision No. 85 of 2019, which was dismissed by the learned Session Judge, Shrawasti vide order dated 25.01.2021. 13. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that challenging the orders dated 10.10.2019 and 25.01.2021, the applicant and other co-accused persons filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Hon'ble Court bearing Criminal Case No. 908/2021, which was disposed of by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 23.02.2021 with a direction to the trial court that if the applicant appear and surrender before court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 14. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The applicant has falsely been roped due to village party bandi and previous enmity. He further submits that the nothing incriminating has been found or recovered against the applicant during course of the investigation and the police has filed the final report after proper investigation. 15. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the co-accused, Rudra Narayan had been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.05.2021 passed in Bail Application No. 4662 of 2021. The case of the applicant is not on the worse footing than that of the co-accused Ram Narayan, who had been granted bail by this Court, in view thereof, the applicant is also entitled to get the benefit of anticipatory bail. 16. It is further submitted that applicant is not required for any custodial investigation. There is no possibility of the accused-applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is a permanent resident of the District Shrawasti and there is no chance of his absconding. The applicant undertakes to furnish adequate surety for his release, if he is granted anticipatory bail. He also undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail granted to him. 17. The applicant is a permanent resident of the District Shrawasti and there is no chance of his absconding. The applicant undertakes to furnish adequate surety for his release, if he is granted anticipatory bail. He also undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail granted to him. 17. Sri Girjesh Kumar Dwivedi, the learned A.G.A.-I opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant, however, he accepts that at this stage custodial investigation of the applicant is not required and also he could not dispute the contention made by the learned counsel for the applicant that other similarly situated co-accused has been granted benefit of bail by this Court. 18. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the contents of F.I.R., and other documents, and the submissions regarding legality and illegality of the allegations made in the F.I.R. which have also been placed forth before the Court, the circumstances which according to the counsel led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length was considered and the assurance given on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled for interim protection. 19. Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the accused-applicant, namely, Ram Prakash Mani Tripathi, involved in Case No. 540/2018, under Section 304 I.P.C., Police Station Ikauna, District Shravasti, he shall be released forthwith by the Station House Officer of the police station concerned, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with the following conditions:- (i) That the accused-applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation; (ii) That the accused-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; and; (iii) That the accused-applicant shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court. 20. However, it is directed that the accused-applicant will join and participate in each and every aspect of investigation and will lend due assistance to the Investigating Agency, even with regard to the discovery of facts, if and when required so by the Investigating Agency. 21. List on 24.03.2022. 22. In the meanwhile, learned A.G.A may file counter affidavit. 23. The applicant, if so advised, may file rejoinder affidavit within one week thereafter.