Allahabad High Court
Navratan vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 November, 2022
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7377 of 2022
Applicant :- Navratan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Pavan Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent.
The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail as the accused-applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with case crime no. 349 of 2019 under Section 308, 323, 324, 504 IPC, P.S. Afjalgarh District Bijnor.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant. Initially NCR was lodged against the applicant and other co-accused under Section 323, 504 IPC. During course of investigation the case was converted into Sections 308, 324, 323, 504 IPC. The only allegation against the applicant is that he was armed with lathi and danda, however, no injury of lathi and danda was sustained by the injured. All the injuries sustained by the injured are of sharp-edged weapon. The applicant has no criminal history. During course of investigation the applicant was not arrested and he has fully cooperated with the investigation even then charge sheet has been submitted against him.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant and has submitted that prima facie offence as alleged in the impugned FIR is made out against the applicant and in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, he is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. There is no reason to falsely implicate the applicant. Although injury inflicted by sharp-edged weapon, it could not said that the applicant has not committed any offence. It is further submitted that as accused persons are charge-sheeted with the help of Section 34 so the injuries of the injured can be said to be sustained with the common intention of all the accused persons. The appellant cannot claim that for the alleged injuries he cannot be held liable. The applicant is also named in the impugned FIR and as per version of the FIR, there is a clear cut allegation against the applicant. The apprehension of the applicant 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 applicant is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant is 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 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 Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.
For a period of two weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.
Order Date :- 11.11.2022
Ashish
