Allahabad High Court
Hemant Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. on 17 August, 2022
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5251 of 2022
Applicant :- Hemant Kumar And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Narayan Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants is taken on record.
Case called out, none present for the informant.
Heard Shri Satya Narayan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
This anticipatory bail application has been preferred by the applicants apprehending their arrest in Case Crime No. 162 of 2022, under Sections 308, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station-Barhalganj, District-Gorakhpur.
Learned counsel for applicants has submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Further submission is that there is general allegation of marpeet levelled against the applicants. As per the allegations in F.I.R., 3 persons were injured, but only one injured was examined and as per the injury report of injured Rakesh, four injuries were found on the body of the injured Rakesh. Injury no. 1 was kept under observation and was referred for x-ray but the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that no x-ray has been done, there was no x-ray report or supplementary report of injured Rakesh. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that no fire arm injury has been caused to any person, so the allegation under section 307 I.P.C. is not made out against the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants have no previous criminal history and they are ready to cooperate the investigation, if the applicants are granted bail, they will not misuse the liberty.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants and has submitted that immediately after the incident, applicants fled away from the spot and three live cartridges and two empty cartridges were recovered from the place of occurrence. He further submits that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicants, they are not entitled for the grant of anticipatory bail. The applicants are also named in the impugned FIR and as per version of the FIR, there is a clear cut allegation against the applicants. The apprehension of the applicants is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and from the perusal of material on record and also taking into consideration the gravity of accusation and there being possibility of their fleeing from justice, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicants are not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants are refused, consequently, the present anticipatory bail application is rejected.
However, since this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, if the applicant appears and surrenders before the trial court and seeks grant of regular bail, his application would be decided on its own merit and without being influenced by the rejection of the present anticipatory bail application in view of the judgment in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.
Order Date :- 17.8.2022
Bhanu
