Allahabad High Court
Vikas @ Ajay Chaudhary vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 September, 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. - 7045 of 2022
Applicant :- Vikas @ Ajay Chaudhary
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raj Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Aditya Prasad Mishra
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard Mr. Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Aditya Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for first informant.
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.-283 of 2022, under Sections 323, 452, 307, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Nai Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant are neighbour of the first informant. No motive has been assigned against the applicant. From perusal of injury report of the injured, the doctor opined that the injures are simple in nature. Further submission is that the applicant is having no previous criminal history and he are ready to cooperate in the investigation.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for first informant have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant and have submitted that the injured was medically examined on 08.06.2022 at about 11.25 pm in which the doctor opined that the injuries are simple in nature and since the condition of the injured was not good, he was admitted on 09.06.2022 at 00.15 am and due to serious condition of the injured, he referred to the Medical College, Meerut for better treatment where he hospitalized till 15.06.2022. The offence is serious in nature and in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, he is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. 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 Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.
Order Date :- 14.9.2022
Ajeet
