Allahabad High Court
Chandan Vishvakarma And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 14 December, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:236535
Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12147 of 2023
Applicant :- Chandan Vishvakarma And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Prakash Singh,Rajiv Chowdhury
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the material available on record. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicants- 1. Chandan Vishvakarma, 2.Pankaj Chaubey in connection with Case Crime No. 96 of 2023 under sections 323, 325, 504, 506, 308 IPC, P.S. Nonhara, District- Ghazipur.
3. There are general allegations against four persons of causing the offence of attempt to commit culpable homicide, causing hurt, criminal intimidation, etc.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. After investigation charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. It is further submitted that the informant and the injured of this case both have not assigned any specific role of assault to the present applicant. It is further submitted that co-accused Shiva Tiwari has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13323 of 2023 by order dated 11.12.2023. It is further submitted that criminal history of applicant no.1 is explained through supplementary affidavit. In case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.
5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, he is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. 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.
6. Although the charge sheet has been submitted in this matter but in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.
7. It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.
8. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.
9. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that :
"11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87 Cr.P.C that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.
12. In sofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170CrPC, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."
10. Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till conclusion of trial in the matter.
11. The anticipatory bail application is allowed accordingly.
12. In the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-
i. The applicants 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 or tamper with the evidence
ii. The applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
iii. The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.
iv. The applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.
13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicants in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 14.12.2023
Fhd
