Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1978 (ALL)

Shyam Sundar Verma v. State of U. P.

2022-12-16

KRISHAN PAHAL

body2022
JUDGMENT : KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kulveer Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. 2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 385 of 2022, under Sections 420, 452, 506 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Mathura, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail. 3. As per prosecution story, the applicant and co-accused person Ram Murti Verma are stated to have come to the shop of the first informant and are stated to have robbed him of Rs. 12,000/- and are even stated to have assaulted him with an attempt to cause his death on 30.5.2022 at about 5.00 p.m. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. Learned counsel has stated that initially the FIR was instituted under Sections 420, 452, 307, 392 and 506 IPC, but during investigation the allegations with respect to Section 307 and 392 IPC have been found false and the said sections have been deleted as such. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The investigation is still going on. It is further stated that applicant is co-operating in the investigation and is ready to cooperate in future also. There is no likelihood of the applicant repeating the said offence, if any. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that applicant has no criminal history. 6. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case. 7. 6. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case. 7. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest, let the accused-applicant Shyam Sundar Verma be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned/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 case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. 5. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. 6. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted. 8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail. 9. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.