Allahabad High Court
Shilendra vs State Of U.P. on 12 July, 2022
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1721 of 2022
Applicant :- Shilendra
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ramanuj Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant (Shilendra) apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.19 of 2020, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station-Phase-III Noida, District-Gautam Budh Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.).
Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.3 of the application, which is an interim anticipatory bail order passed by this Court on 04.12.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.52345 of 2019, whereby the anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant till filing of the charge-sheet. For convenience, the order dated 04.12.2019 is being reproduced here-in-below:-
"Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Ramajun Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the first information report as well as rejection order.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is husband of the deceased with whom marriage was solemnized about 13 years back and two children were also born from the wedlock. Admittedly, it is stated that the deceased died on account of asphyxia due to hanging and in the F.I.R. itself brother of the deceased has merely laid suspicion that on account of atrocities and cruelty being meted out to the deceased she has committed suicide. From bare reading of the F.I.R. prima facie element of abetment is not discernible. The investigation is going on and the evidence is yet to be collected the reason for the deceased to committed suicide after 13 years of the marriage; the applicant undertakes to cooperate with the investigation. The matter needs deeper and fairer investigation before any arrest should be given effect to. Therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and having no criminal antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.
In the event of arrest of the applicant Shilendra involved in Case Crime No. 519 of 2019, u/s 306 IPC, P.S. Sikandrarau, District Hathras shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report if any under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions.
(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.
The applicant is directed to produce a certified copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.
Let the copy of this order be sent by the Registrar General of this Court to Sessions Judge concerned for it's compliance.
In view of the aforesaid, the application for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, allowed."
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has co-operated with the investigation and the charge-sheet has been filed.
Therefore, he has submitted that in view of the dictums of Hon'ble Aprex Court in re: Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director, Criminal Appeal No.929 of 2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5234/2021) and Siddharth vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.838 of 2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5442/2021), wherein the Apex Court has observed that if the accused has co-operated with the investigation and the charge-sheet has been filed, his arrest may not be treated as warranted.
On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but he could not dispute the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the applicant.
The Hon'ble Aprex Court in re: Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director, Criminal Appeal No.929 of 2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5234/2021) has considered the decision of Delhi High Court in re; Court on its own Motion vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2004) 72 DRJ 629, wherein the guideline was formulated that if any accused person has not been arrested during investigation and has co-operated with the investigation, there is no need to arrest him after filing charge sheet, particularly, if the nature of offences is not so serious. In the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court has considered its own judgment in re; Siddharth vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.838 of 2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5442/2021), whereby the Apex Court considering the observation of the well celebrated judgment in re; Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Ors, (1994) 4 SCC 260, has observed that the arrest is not mandatory in all cases and if the accused person is cooperating with investigation, there is no need to arrest. The Apex Court in re; Siddharth (supra) has also considered one aspect that if accused person has not been arrested during investigation, there would be no need to arrest him after filing charge sheet, if it is not so warranted. The Apex Court in re; Aman Preet Singh (supra) has directed all the High Courts to circulate the judgment passed in re; Siddharth (supra) for its compliance.
Besides, the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 has observed that anticipatory bail may be extended till conclusion of trial.
Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue and having considered the fact that the present applicant was granted anticipatory bail till filing of the charge-sheet and the charge-sheet has been filed and also considering the dictums of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in re: Aman Preet Singh (supra) and Siddharth (supra) and Sushila Aggarwal (supra), I am of the opinion that the protection, so granted by this Court vide order dated 04.12.2019 to the applicant, may be extended till conclusion of the trial.
Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is allowed.
The protection granted to the applicant by this Court vide order dated 04.12.2019 is extended till conclusion of the trial.
Order Date :- 12.7.2022 [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
Suresh
