Mannan @ Jaskaran And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1073 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 13
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1695 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Mannan @ Jaskaran And Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Kumar Trivedi,Anuj Dayal
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.

1. Through this petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 23.3.2022 arising out of Case Crime No.0238 of 2021 under Section 147, 148, 323 and 308 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Maholi, District Sitapur passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, court no.1, Sitapur in Bail Application No.399 of 2022 (Mannan and others vs. State of U.P.).

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

3. Notice to respondent no.2 is dispensed with.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier petitioners had filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, bearing No. 598 of 2022, which was disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 16.2.2022 providing that if a bail application is filed by the petitioners, the same shall be decided by the learned trial Court in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 28.07.2021). He submits that in compliance of the aforesaid order dated 16.02.2022 passed by this Court, the petitioners filed bail application before the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court was pleased to grant interim bail to the petitioners vide order dated 3.3.2022. After that, the case was fixed for final disposal of the bail application.

5. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that since the accused/petitioners were not in custody according to Section 439 Cr.P.C., therefore, his bail application was rejected by trial Court vide impugned order dated 23.03.2022. The relevant extract of the impugned order dated 23.03.2022 is as under:-

"सत्येन्द्र कुमार ऐन्टिल बनाम सेन्ट्रल ब्यूरो ऑफ इन्वेस्टीगेशन एण्ड अदर्स 2021¼10½एस- सी-सी- पेज 773 की विधि व्यवस्था में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अपराधों को तीन श्रेणी में दण्डादेश एवं अपराध की प्रकृति के आधार पर विभाजित किया गया है। मा० सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने अपनी विधि व्यवस्था में जमानत प्रार्थना पत्र के निस्तारण के सम्बंध में यह अभिमत दिया कि On this aspect also we would give our imprimatur and naturally the bail application to be ultimately considered, would be guided by the statutory provisions.

निः सन्देह आवेदक@अभियुक्तगण को विचारण न्यायालय द्वारा जिन धाराओं में संज्ञान लेते हुए विचारण हेतु आहूत किया गया है os 07 वर्ष से कम दण्ड से दण्डनीय है परन्तु धारा 439 दं०प्र० सं० में सेशन न्यायालय के जमानत की शक्तियों के सम्बंध में प्राविधान किया गया है। जो निम्नवत है

उच्च न्यायालय या सेशन न्यायालय यह निदेश दे सकता है कि किसी ऐसे व्यक्ति को जिसपर किसी अपराध का अभियोग है और जो अभिरक्षा में है जमानत ij छोड़ दिया जाए और यदि अपराध धारा 437 द०प्र०स० की उप धारा 3 में विनिर्दिष्ट प्रकार का है तो वह ऐसी शrZ जिसे वह उस उप धारा में वर्णित प्रयोजनों के लिए आवश्यक समझे अधिरोपित कर सकता इस प्रकार धारा 439 द०प्र०सं० के अन्तर्गत नियमित जमानत प्रार्थना पत्र के निस्तारण ds fy, ;g आवश्यक है कि अभियुक्त अभिरक्षा में हो। विद्वान विचारण न्यायालय द्वारा अभियुक्त के जमानत प्रर्थना पत्र को अपने आदेश दिनांकित 04-03-2022 के द्वारा पोषणीय न होने के आधार पर निरस्त किया गया है। विद्वान विचारण न्यायालय द्वारा यह प्रेक्षित किया गया कि जमानत प्रार्थना पत्र की सुनवाई के समय न तो अभियुक्त उपस्थित है और न ही न्यायिक अभिरक्षा में है। इससे यह स्पष्ट है कि वर्तमान में अभियुक्त न्यायिक अभिरक्षा में नहीं है। सत्येन्द्र कुमार ऐन्टिल बनाम सेन्ट्रल ब्यूरो ऑफ इन्वेस्टीगेशन एण्ड अदर्स 2021 ¼10½ एस सी- सी- पेज 773 की विधि व्यवस्था में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा यह भी अभिमत व्यक्त किया गया है कि This is the only purpose for which we have issued these guidelines, but they are not fettered on the powers of the courts. जैसा कि उल्लिखित किया गया है कि धारा 439 दे०प्र०सं० के अन्तर्गत सत्र न्यायालय को नियमित जमानत प्रार्थना पत्र की सुनवाई के समय अभियुक्त को अभिरक्षा में होना आवश्यक है परन्तु प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में आवेदक / अभियुक्तगण किसी भी न्यायालय की अभिरक्षा में नहीं है। ऐसी ifjffLFkfr में प्रस्तुत जमानत प्रार्थना पत्र पोषणीय न होने के कारण निरस्त किये जाने योग्य है।

आदेश

प्रार्थी@अभियुक्तगण मन्नन व अन्य द्वारा अ0सं0-238/2021 ds मामले में प्रस्तुत जमानत प्रार्थना पत्र पोषणीय न होने के कारण निरस्त किया जाता है।"

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of the Court towards the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), which is on record. The relevant paragraph of the order dated 28.7.2021 is extracted below:-

"We put to learned senior counsel for the petitioner as to why the petitioner did not appear after summons were sent in pursuance to cognizance being taken as logically, the petitioner ought to have appeared and applied for regular bail and there should have been no case for anticipatory bail at that stage. Learned senior counsel submits that the system which is sought to be followed specially in the State of Uttar Pradesh is that even if a person is not arrested during investigation, on charge sheet being filed, more so, in such cases of CBI a person is sent to custody and thus, his appearance and applying for bail would have resulted in his being sent to custody."

7. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the word ''custody' has been defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharth vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh  reported in (2022) 1 SC 676. The relevant paragraph-9 is extracted below:-

"We are in agreement with the aforesaid view of the High Courts and would like to give our imprimatur to the said judicial view. It has rightly been observed on consideration of Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. that it does not impose an obligation on the Officer-in-charge to arrest each and every accused at the time of filing of the chargesheet. We have, in fact, come across cases where the accused has cooperated with the investigation throughout and yet on the chargesheet being filed non-bailable warrants have been issued for his production premised on the requirement that there is an obligation to arrest the accused and produce him before the court. We are of the view that if the Investigating Officer does not believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons he/she is not required to be produced in custody. The word "custody" appearing in Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. does not contemplate either police or judicial custody but it merely connotes the presentation of the accused by the Investigating Officer before the court while filing the chargesheet."

8. It is, thus, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that since the petitioners were present before the learned trial Court at the time of final disposal of the bail application, therefore, that was enough for the purpose of custody.

9. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order as Section 439 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mandates that only that person can be released on bail who is in the custody and not otherwise, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is justifiable.

10. It transpires from the impugned order dated 3.3.2022 that the bail application of the accused/petitioners has been rejected on the sole ground that at the time of hearing of the bail application, the accused/petitioners were not in judicial custody as mandated under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

11. A perusal of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) by which the offences have been categorized under Category ''A' to ''C' by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It appears that offences in the present case comes under Category ''A'.

12. It is not in dispute that the accused/petitioners were not arrested during investigation and they have also co-operated with the investigation, therefore, the bail application of the such accused persons on appearance have to be decided without the accused being taken into physical custody as has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil's case. The relevant portion of the judgement is extracted as under:-

"Category A.....

a)..

b)...

c)...

d)....

e) Bail applications of such accused on appearance may be decided w/o the accused being taken in physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided."

13. It is apt to mention that the word ''custody' has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph-9 of the Siddharth's case (supra), according to which, custody bearing in Section 170 Cr.P.C. does not mean either police or judicial custody. It merely requires the presentation of the accused by the Investigating Officer before the Court.

14. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners in this case is that petitioners were very much present before the Court, however, have declined to go into the physical custody.

15. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A as well as taking into consideration the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil's case (supra) and Sidharth's case (supra), I am of the view that until the Investigating Officer does not believe that accused will abscond or disobey the summons, the bail application of the accused/petitioners could not have been rejected on the sole ground that they were not in the physical custody as required under Section 439(1) Cr.P.C. rather in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the accused had appeared before the learned trial Court and the Investigating Officer does not believes that they will abscond or disobey the summons, mere presence before the trial Court should have been considered as in custody as provided under Section 170 Cr.P.C. without taking them into actual physical judicial or police custody. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.

16. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.3.2022 is hereby set-aside. The matter is remanded to the learned trial Court with a direction to consider and decide the application of the accused/petitioners for bail in the light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) and Siddharth's case (supra). The accused/petitioners shall appear before the trial Court within fifteen days' from today.

Order Date :-11.4.2022

Madhu