Sabhapati Yadav And Anr. vs State Of U.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 1670 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 27
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9756 of 2020
 

 
Applicant :- Sabhapati Yadav And Anr.
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sartaj Ahmad Siddiqui,Ghanshyam Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ranjit Singh
 
And
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9761 of 2020
 

 
Applicant :- Sabhapati Yadav & Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sartaj Ahmad Siddiqui,Ghanshyam Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Sartaj Ahmad Siddidqui, learned counsel for the applicants, learned Government Advocate assisted by Sri Santosh Mishra, learned A.G.A. on behalf of State.

2. By means of Application No.9756 of 2020, the applicants have sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.194 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 352, 452, 427, 286, 504, 188, 269 I.P.C. & 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act & 51 (a) AAPDA Prabandhan Act, 2005, Police Station Patti, District Pratapgarh and in Case Crime No.195 of 2020, under Sections 188, 269, 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 341, 353, 504, 188, 269 I.P.C. & 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act & 51 (a) AAPDA Prabandhan Act, 2005 & 22 (1) 22(2) 22(3) of Mahamari Sanshodhal Act, 2020, Police Station Patti, District Pratapgarh and .

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that as per the version stated in the First Information Report that on the date of occurrence, i.e. 06.08.2020 at 12.25 hours at Police Station Patti, District Pratapgarh complainant Raunak Singh lodged an FIR which is a sequel of an incident which had taken place earlier on 03.08.2020 where a fight had occurred with Hari Shankar Yadav with regard to pasting of posters. It is stated that the matter was settled but the Yadav community felt insulted and on the date of occurrence, i.e. 06.08.2020 at 10.30 a.m. it is stated that the applicants along with 26 others persons armed with pistol, rifle, gun came to the house of the complainant Raunak Singh. In order to save himself he ran inside the house. The accused were also alleged to have entered into the house of complainant and broken the house hold property. It is also alleged that the accused fired outside the house in the market area to create terror, but they were not able to apprehend the complainant who managed to escape. For the said incident two First Information Reports were lodged one by complainant Raunak Singh, which is numbered as Case Crime No.194 of 2020 and the second was lodged by the police himself in Case Crime No.195 of 2020. In both the cases the facts mentioned and more or less are same and, therefore, both the applications are being heard together.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that a bare reading of First Information Reports would indicate that the said incident is very false and unlikely in the circumstances in which it has been stated. It is stated that 28 persons duly armed with weapons had chased the complainant inside his house, but there is no injury on the body of the complainant. He has fairly submitted that the applicants are wanted in 42 criminal cases and in all of which bail has been granted. He further submitted that the complainant had given an affidavit on 25.08.2020 stating that he had never lodged the said First Information Report and it is in fact the police had taken a blank paper from him. He vehemently submitted that looking into the facts of the case where 26 persons were alleged to have chased the complainant duly armed and they had also alleged to have fired upon the complainant, but no injury is there on the body of complainant and also looking to the fact that in all 42 cases the applicants have been granted bail, these bail applications deserve to be allowed.

5. Learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, submits that this is a very serious issue and the applicants themselves are hardened criminal. It is further submitted that the applicants hold terror in the entire area and as per investigation it has come on record that the complainant was terrorized to file an affidavit as annexed by the applicants in the applications. He has further submitted that the applicants are hardened criminal having 52 cases and, therefore, in the light of various pronouncement, of Hon'ble Apex Court the benefit of anticipatory bail would not be available to them. He has further submitted that proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have also been initiated at the behest of Investigating Authority and despite process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. having taken place, the applicants have not surrendered and further they have not been apprehended by the police and evading their arrest and also not co-operating in the investigation. In support of his contention he placed reliance in the case of Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012 (8) SCC 730 as well as in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma, 2014 (2) SCC 171. It is submitted that Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid pronouncements have very clearly held that a person who is fleeing from justice is not supposed to be given the benefit of anticipatory bail.

6. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

7. In considering as to whether the applicant is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail, this Court must take into account and weigh the relevant considerations with the facts of the case. The relevant considerations for grant of anticipatory bail have been duly considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofSiddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 which reads as under: -

"112.The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:

(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made.

(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence.

(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice.

(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences.

(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.

(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people.

(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern.

(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused.

(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail."

8. As per the aforesaid judgment it has to be examined as to the nature of offence, the evidence against the applicants and also as to whether there are chances of them fleeing from justice.

9. From a bare perusal of the First Information Report as well as material which has come during investigation it is clear that the applicants have a criminal background inasmuch as they have 52 criminal cases against them. As per counsel for applicants in 42 cases they have been granted bail. The allegation levelled in the First Information Report also indicate that the applicants hold terror in the area and they raided the complainant's house along with 28 persons duly armed and had fired, but fortunately the complainant escaped without sustaining any injury. House trespassers at night by such a large group of persons itself is sufficient to create terror in the area. The second contention stated is with regard to the fact that the applicants have already been declared to be absconders. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lavesh (supra), according to which a person who is absconder/proclaimed offender should not be granted benefit of anticipatory bail. Subsequently, Hon'ble Apex Court considered the judgment of Lavesh (supra) in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma (supra). In the said case the accused had not been declared to be proclaimed offenders but were only absconders and Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon the judgment of Lavesh (supra) denied to grant anticipatory bail to the accused therein.

10. Considering the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, one of the relevant consideration to grant anticipatory bail is the fact as to whether the applicants who are before the Court would flee from justice. This aspect of the matter is also of relevance looking to the fact that investigation is also affected in case a person does not appear before the Investigating Authority. Having considered the entire conspectus of the case narrated by the applicants as well as by the Government Advocate, looking into the seriousness of the allegations and also that the applicants have already been absconding and evading arrest from the police, I do not think it a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants.

11. The applications are, accordingly, rejected.

Order Date :- 28.1.2021

Anand Sri./-

(Alok Mathur, J.)