Allahabad High Court
Saurav Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. ... on 14 September, 2022
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 998 of 2022
Applicant :- Saurav Kumar Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Amol Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Purnendu Chakravarty
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Heard Sri Amol Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for respondent no.4, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail as the accused-applicant-Saurav Kumar Singh is apprehending his arrest in connection with F.I.R./Case Crime No.0396 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 120B, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., Police Station-Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, District-Lucknow.
This Court had granted bail to the applicant on 17.1.2022 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.11160 of 2021 under Sections 406, 419 and 420 IPC. Thereafter, the matter was investigated and charge sheet has been filed under Sections 120B, 409, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was already granted bail by this Court. However, in added Sections 120B, 409, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, the applicant is also entitled for bail. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon Para 70 of a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (SLP (Criminal) Nos.7281-7282 of 2017, decided on 29.1.2020. Para 70 is quoted hereinbelow:
"70. The question here is whether there is anything in the law which per se requires that upon filing of the charge-sheet, or the summoning of the accused, by the court (or even the addition of an offence in the charge-sheet, of which an applicant on bail is accused of freshly), his liberty ought to be forfeited and that he should be asked to surrender and apply for regular bail. The observations about the width and amplitude of the power under Section 438, made in answer to the first question, are equally relevant here too. In the present context, further, the judgment and observations of this Court in its interpretation of Section 167(2) are telling. It was held in Gursharan Singh (supra), the release by grant of bail of an accused under Section 167(2) amounts to "deemed bail". This is borne out by Section 167(2) which states that anyone released on bail under its provision "shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter The judgment in Aslam Babalal Desai (supra) has clarified that when an accused is released by operation of Section 167(2) and subsequently, a charge-sheet is filed, there is no question of the cancellation of his bail. In these circumstances, the mere fact that an accused is given relief under Section 438 at one stage, per se does not mean that upon the filing of a charge-sheet, he is necessarily to surrender or/and apply for regular bail. The analogy to 'deemed bail' under Section 167(2) with anticipatory bail leads this court to conclude that the mere subsequent event of the filing of a charge-sheet cannot compel the accused to surrender and seek regular bail. As a matter of fact, interestingly, if indeed, if a charge-sheet is filed where the accused is on anticipatory bail, the normal implication would be that there was no occasion for the investigating agency or the police to require his custody, because there would have been nothing in his behavior requiring such a step. In other words, an accused, who is granted anticipatory bail would continue to be at liberty when the charge sheet is filed, the natural implication is that there is no occasion for a direction by the Court that he be arrested and further that he had cooperated with the investigation. At the same time, however, at any time during the investigation were any occasion to arise calling for intervention of the court for infraction of any of the conditions imposed under Section 437(3) read with Section 438(2) or the violation of any other condition imposed in the given facts of a case, recourse can always be had under Section 439(2)."
It is lastly contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has no criminal history and there is no possibility of the accused-applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the accused-applicant is granted anticipatory bail, the accused-applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for respondent no.4 have opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and legal position.
In view of the aforesaid facts and judgment of the Supreme Court, the applicant is also entitled for bail.
Let accused-applicant- Saurav Kumar Singh in the event of his arrest in connection with aforesaid case crime, forthwith be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting officer/Investigating Officer/ S.H.O. concerned on the following conditions:-
(i) That the accused-applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation;
(ii) That the accused-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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;
(iii) That the accused-applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; and
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against applicant in accordance with law.
The present anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 14.9.2022
Sachin
