Arman vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 23266 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:170572
 
Court No. - 71
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8755 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Arman
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Balbir Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

1. Supplementary affidavit has been filed today, is taken on record.

2. Heard Mr. Balbir Yadav learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

3. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.233 of 2023, under Sections 414, 411 and 420 IPC, Police Station Civil Line, District Aligarh.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, in fact, no such incident has taken place. The applicant have never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Initially the impugned FIR has been lodged against 5 named accused persons including the applicant. Neither the applicant was arrested on spot nor any recovery has been made from the possession of the applicant. At the time of alleged incident, the applicant was living at Delhi. He further submits that the name of the applicant has been shown on the basis of confessional statement of accused, namely, Asad, Faraz Khan, Rizwan and Fahad Khan, who were arrested by the police. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 15 of the affidavit. He further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

5. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant.

6. After having very carefully examined, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material brought on record, there is no justification for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is hereby refused.

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that directions may be given to the court below to consider the bail application of the applicant in view of the judgment in the case Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.

8. In the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for deciding of the bail application. For that purpose, the cases have been divided under four categories. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the trial courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid guidelines, while considering the bail application. This Court has no doubt, that as and when, the applicants approach the trial court for bail, the trial court shall definitely follow the directions given in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra).

9. However, considering the nature of the allegations and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court concerned and applies for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra).

10. With the above directions, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of finally.

Order Date :- 24.8.2023

Ajeet