Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Kumar Saini @ Sanjay Saini vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 31 May, 2022
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4318 of 2021
Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Saini @ Sanjay Saini
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Singh,Ravi Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Naman Rajvanshi
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Shri Mohit Singh as well as Shri Ravi Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Shri K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for State and Shri Naman Rajvanshi, learned counsel for complainant.
2. Applicant has approached this Court by way of filing the present Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. after rejection of their Anticipatory Bail Application, vide order dated 19.1.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Meerut, seeking anticipatory bail in Case No.5922 of 2019, CNR No.4024761 2019, State vs. Bhopal and others, arising out of Case Crime No.674 of 2018, under Sections 420, 406 IPC, P.S. - Partapur, District - Meerut.
3. This Court has granted interim anticipatory bail to the applicant on 23.2.2021. The facts which are not disputed that First Information Report was lodged against the applicant on 7.10.2018 and it is contended that applicant was not arrested during investigation, finally charge sheet was filed against applicant and other co-accused on 17.4.2019 and cognizance was taken on 30.4.2019. It appears that applicant has not appeared before concerned Trial Court despite bailable warrant was issued against him and later on Non-Bailable Warrant was issued on 5.12.2019 which appears to be still in force. Meanwhile, applicant has approached this Court by way of filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the charge sheet, however, no interim order was granted in favour of applicant and presently, that application is still pending. In these circumstances, applicant filed an anticipatory bail application before the concerned Trial Court which was rejected by an order dated 19.1.2021 and thereafter, this application was filed before this Court on 10.2.2021.
4. Learned counsel submits that applicant has co-operated during investigation and he was not arrested, therefore, his arrest is not necessary after filing of charge sheet. Applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial, however, he has not disputed that despite NBW was issued against applicant, he has not appeared/surrendered before the concerned Trial Court.
5. Few factors and parameters, which this Court has to consider for exercising discretion for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail are nature and gravity of accusation, exact role of the accused, his or her antecedents, possibility of the accused to flee from justice, likelihood to repeat similar or other offence. Whether accusation are made only with the object of injury and causing humiliation to the accused or case is of large magnitude with possible effect on a large number of people. Greater care and caution is required while considering cases under Section 34 and 149 IPC. Further consideration of threat to complainant and witnesses and tempering of evidences are other relevant factors.
6. While considering anticipatory bail application this Court has to struck balance between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the fair and free investigation and accused should not be subjected to harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention. This Court is justified to impose conditions spelt out in Section 437 Cr.P.C. and also other restrictive conditions if deem necessary in the facts and circumstances of a particular case including limit of the anticipatory bail but not in routine manner. An Anticipatory Bail Application has to be based on concrete facts (and not vague or general allegations) relatable to offence and why the applicants reasonably apprehends their or her arrest, as well as their version of the facts.
7. In the present case, applicant has taken all the available remedies by way of filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as well as an application for anticipatory bail, however, from the perusal of order sheet, it appears that applicant has avoided the due process of law and has not appeared before the Trial Court despite NBW was issued against him way back on 5.12.2019. The interim protection was granted to the applicant on 23.2.2021, however, it appears that no arguments were raised, if raised, were not recorded and it was passed only on the ground that learned counsel for the informant has sought time to file counter affidavit.
8. The anticipatory bail application is a protection to an accused, who has filed the bail application on the concrete facts and apprehended immediate arrest, however, conduct of applicant to avoid the coercive measures taken by Trial Court are against his prayer. Therefore, considering the conduct of applicant, I do not find any merit in the present anticipatory bail application.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant will surrender/appear before the concerned Trial Court within a period of two weeks from today and will file bail application which may be considered in view of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another; (2021) 10 SCC 773 to which, learned counsel for informant and learned A.G.A. have no objection.
10. In view of above, while rejecting this anticipatory bail application of applicant, this application is finally disposed of that in case, applicant surrenders/appears before the Trial Court within a period of two weeks from today and files bail application, the same shall be considered in accordance with law taking note of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (Supra).
11. With the aforesaid directions, the present anticipatory bail application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 31.5.2022
Rishabh
[Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.]
