Allahabad High Court
Sanjeev And Another vs State Of U.P And Another on 4 November, 2022
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10361 of 2022
Applicant :- Sanjeev And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Birendra Singh Khokher
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Birendra Singh Khokher, learned counsel for the informant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.144 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 325, 336, 307 and 506 IPC, Police Station Rabupura, District Gautam Budh Nagar, during the pendency of trial.
As per prosecution story, the applicants and other co-accused persons are said to have come to the house of the informant on 26.07.2020 at about 9:00 pm and are stated to have assaulted the family members of the informant injuring five persons therein in all and are even stated to have torn the clothes of one of the female member of the family.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant no.2 is a government employee and has nothing to do with the said offence. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicants were granted anticipatory bail till the submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and they have not misused it whatsoever. Learned counsel has further stated that the charge-sheet has been filed against other co-accused persons and the applicants were exonerated by the police, but at the state of taking of cognizance by the learned Magistrate, the applicants have been summoned vide order dated 18.01.2021 and the applicants had challenged the said summoning order by filing a criminal revision in this Court, which was dismissed later on. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicants and there is a cross version to the present case and four persons have sustained injuries from the said of the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants has placed much reliance on the judgment of Apex Court passed in case of Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director AIR 2021 4154, wherein it has been categorically stated that the person who has not been arrested during investigation and was on anticipatory bail during trial, his anticipatory bail may be extended till the conclusion of trial.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that there are five injured persons and all of them have sustained grievous injuries including head injury.
Learned counsel for the informant has placed much reliance on the judgment of this Court Shivam vs. State of U.P. and Another reported in AirOnline 2021 All 484, wherein it has been categorically stated that if after investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed and there is a cross version, the accused persons are not entitled for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicants are continuously avoiding trial and escaping court since 18.01.2021 on one pretext or other. The non bailable warrant has been issued against them and even proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. are complete. Learned counsel has further placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court passed in case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in 2014 (8) SCC 273, wherein it was held that if the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against the delinquent, the same is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there is cross case between the parties, the arguments tendered by the learned counsel for the applicants at bar pertain to regular bail application. They cannot be agitated at the stage of 438 Cr.P.C. I do not find it a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants.
The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.11.2022
Ravi Kant
