Allahabad High Court
Deepak vs State Of U.P. on 7 July, 2021
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7470 of 2021
Applicant :- Deepak
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Mishra,Vinay Prakash Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri Rajiv Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Applicant-Deepak has approached this Court by way of filing the present Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. after rejection of his Anticipatory Bail Application vide order dated 23.02.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (First), Gautambudh Nagar in Case Crime No. 102 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 386, 504, 506, 427 IPC, Police Station Surajpur, District Gautambudh Nagar.
3. In the present case Informant is a Contractor who undertakes work on contract basis of U.P. Power Corporation. A tender was finalized in favour of Informant. It is further alleged that applicant, who is a rival Contractor, extended threat to Informant and also demanded protection money on 23.12.2020 when contract was awarded to Informant. On 06.02.2021 when Informant and his partner was leaving the office of Electricity Department, applicant and co-accused alongwith some other persons intercepted Informant's Car and attacked by stone, lathi and danda. Mirror of Car was broken and applicant was got injured. Accused persons were carrying country made pistols also.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that it is a case of false implication due to reason that there is business rivalry between applicant and Informant. Neither the Informant had received any injury nor he was medically examined. The applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail.
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing for State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that applicant and co-accused are persons of criminal nature. They have not only demanded protection money but also formed an unlawful assembly and committed offence of extortion by putting Informant and his partner in fear of death and grievous injury, which is an offence punishable for a term which may extend to 10 years.
6. It is settled law that impact of grant or refusal of application for anticipatory bail, directly relates to right of life and liberty of a person. Few factors and parameters, mentioned in Section 438(1), which are essentially required to be kept under consideration while exercising discretion dealing such applications are nature and gravity of accusation, criminal antecedents, details of prior conviction if any, possibility of accused to flew from from justice and whether accusation are made only with the object of causing injury and humiliation to the accused. The Supreme Court in various judgments has elucidated other factors also such as impact of the grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in cases of high magnitude affecting a large number of people; Court must carefully evaluate the entire material against the accused to clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused, greater care and evaluation should be considered where accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 IPC to find out any over implication and a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no pre judice should be caused to the free, fair and complete investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused. (See; Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors (2011) 1 SCC 694, Jai Prakash Singh vs. State of Bihar: (2012) 4 SCC 379, Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla vs. Smt. Anita Agarwal and Ors. Etc. 2020 SCC Online SC 1031).
7. In the present case applicant was one of the member of an unlawful assembly which has committed above referred offence punishable for a term which may extend to 10 years. The incident occurred in a broad day light and facts and circumstances of present case required custodial interrogation also to identify the unknown persons who were part of unlawful assembly.
8. In view of above as also considering the law on anticipatory bail, no ground is made out for grant of anticipatory bail.
9. The application is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 7.7.2021
AK
