Allahabad High Court
Akhilesh Yadav And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 2 February, 2023
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8503 of 2020
Applicant :- Akhilesh Yadav And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Mashaluddin Shah
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
This is second anticipatory bail application and the earlier bail application was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 13.07.2020.
List revised. No one has appeared on behalf of the applicants to press this case.
Heard Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.
The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0539 of 2018, under Sections 467, 468, 419, 420, 406, 409, 471, 120B, 34 IPC, P.S. Sigra, District-Varanasi, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.
Perusal of the order sheet goes to show that the allegations made against the applicants are serious in nature as the same has involved in the transaction of about one crore from the bank after committing forgery.
Learned AGA for the State submits that as on date there is no material on record to presume the false implication of the applicant. Investigation of this case is going on. Considering the prosecution case, offence is made out against the applicant. He has also pointed out that the applicant has approached before this Court directly without availing remedy to approach before the court below. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ankit Bharti and others v. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (3) ADJ 575 (FB), has clearly held that special circumstances must necessarily exist and be established, and the application must rest on a strong foundation to invoke concurrent jurisdiction of this Court directly; without rejection by the court below.
Object of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains. It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this court can-not be put in a straitjacket formula, but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from Justice , apprehension of tampering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation, trial or society, etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society.
Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the custodial interrogation and will lead to nondisclosure of useful information and material facts and information. In the case of P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (2019) 9 SCC 24, the Apex Court held as under:-
"74. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the investigation intended to secure several purposes. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper theinvestigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and to collect more information which may lead to recovery of relevant information. In State Rep.By The CBI v. Anil Sharma(1997) 7 SCC 187, the Supreme Court held as under:-
"6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order underSection 438of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders."
81. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. ........."
In another judgment of Apex Court in case of Sadhna Chaudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 2022 (237) AIC 205 (SC), the Apex Court has held that while dealing with an application for anticipatory bail, the High Court must consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the exact role of the accused and apprehension of the arrest etc.
In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, taking into consideration the role assigned to the applicant as per prosecution case, gravity and nature of accusation as well as reasons mentioned above, this court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power under section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure is made out in favour of applicant.
So far as the objection raised by the learned AGA regarding the applicant has approached before this Court directly without availing remedy to approach before the court below, is concerned, I find that the reasons assigned for approaching this Court directly for anticipatory bail are not at all convincing extraordinary and special, as such, this anticipatory bail application is rejected on this ground also.
Accordingly this application under section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
Order Date :- 2.2.2023
Jitendra/-
