Srijan Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 6495 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 85.................................................................................................A.F.R.
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 846 of 2023
 
Applicant :- Srijan Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Singh,Sr. Advocate
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ankit Kapoor,Prashant Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

1. Heard Sri Shaghir Ahmad, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ajeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prashant Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State and perused the papers on record.

2. The present application has been moved on behalf of the applicant-Srijan Singh seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 0421 of 2022, under Sections 307 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Bhelupur, District Varanasi.

3. As per allegations in the FIR on the day of occurrence i.e., at about 1 pm on 26.12.2022, one Ashutosh Tiwari alongwith his friend Shariq was going on his motorbike; the moment he reached near R.P.F barrack, Srijan Singh S/o Manoj (present applicant), with the intention to kill him, over an old enmity deliberately and intentionally ran his four wheeler over Ashutosh Tiwari; it is alleged in the FIR that this act was done purposefully and knowingly; three other co-accused were also sitting in that four wheeler; Ashotosh and his friend Shariq sustained number of serious injuries; Srijan Singh and Manoj Singh escaped in their four wheeler thinking that they have died; whole of the incident was recorded in C.C.T.V. camera; they were hospitalized and were referred to another hospital for further management; the injuries sustained by them were dangerous to life.

4. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that he was not driving the vehicle and that he has been falsely implicated in this case out of enmity; one Rajesh Singh, who is family driver of the applicant has stated that in fact it was he who was driving the four wheeler at the time of occurrence; it is next contended that at the most it was a case of rash and negligent driving and no offence under Sections 307 and 506 I.P.C. is made out; the investigation has not been conducted in a fair manner; it has been twisted to make out a case under Section 307 IPC.

To stress the above point, a judgment of Supreme Court given in Ravi Kapur vs. State of Rajasthan; AIR 2012 SC 2986 has been cited before me. I went through the above judgment. It appears that the Supreme Court has analyzed the meaning of words 'negligence', 'culpable negligence', 'reasonable care', 'doctrine of res ipsa loquitur', 'difference between rashness and culpable rashness' and certain other matters in the light of Section 279 IPC. On the basis of above judgment, it is argued that this case essentially fell within the scope of Section 279 IPC only and not Section 307 IPC. I fail to understand how this judgment can be of any utility on the point stressed before this Court. Incidentally, in Para-15 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has referred to its own judgment in Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra; (2012) 2 SCC 648, highlighting the fact that if a person doing an act of rash and negligent driving, is aware of the risk that a particular consequences is likely to follow and that consequences indeed occurs, he may be held guilty not only for the act but also for the consequences. In my view where the act is either intentional or done with conscious awareness of the consequences there is no need to go into finer points of differences between the rash and negligent act and any rash or negligent act with the knowledge of likelihood of dangerous consequences. In my view no benefit of this judgment can be derived by the applicant in view of the fact that the accused applicants act was allegedly intentional and deliberate.

Another judgment which has been cited before me is K. Rajapandian vs. State of NCT of Delhi; 2022 LawSuit (Del) 1085 decided on 06.05.2022. I went through the above judgment too. Again I failed to understand how this judgment can give any benefit to the applicant.

5. The anticipatory bail application is vehemently opposed by other side pointing out certain facts, circumstances and also the reply in response to the point raised by the applicant which are as below:-

(i) There are number of independent witnesses including Chandrashekhar, Shariq, Ritesh Kumar and injured one, who have clearly stated that the applicant was driving the four wheeler and that he intentionally caused/changed the direction of his vehicle and ran over them; It is with god's grace that they have been saved;

(ii) The injured sustained a number of injuries which could have been proved fatal had timely medical assistance not given to them;

(iii) Not only the inculpatory oral evidence, there are other pieces of evidence like C.C.T.V. footage, the spot inspection report which corroborate the prosecution theory;

(iv) In this case, the FIR has been lodged in a prompt manner ruling out probability of introduction of any colored or exaggerated version or false implication;

(vii) Both the parties had strained relationship; This fact finds ample strength from the previous FIR lodged by Srijan Singh (the present applicant) against Shariq Khan and 2 others under Sections 279, 504, 323, 427, 506, 342 IPC. It is further argued that if enmity can be one of the causes for false implication, it can be one of the reasons which motivated the accused to try to kill the persons of the other side;

(viii) The admission of guilt by his man indicates that applicant can exert his influence over others to turn things in his favour;

(ix) It is argued that there is more than sufficient evidence to show the complicity of the applicant in this case and that he is one of the main accused persons, hence this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

6. I considered the nature of allegations, the submissions of both the sides and went through all the material on record. It may be noted that an anticipatory bail is not a substitute for regular bail. The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail are fundamentally different from the grant of regular bail in certain respects. The exercise of this extra-ordinary powers calls for existence of some circumstances which may prompt this court to intervene in the regular process of law for the purpose of furthering the ends of justice and for preventing abuse/misuse of process of law. I do not find any material to form an opinion that the name of the applicant has been dragged in to merely bring disgrace to his name. I do not find any ground good enough to give benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant, hence, the present anticipatory bail application is rejected.

7. It is made clear that observations made herein shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on material before him at any stage of the trial.

Order Date :- 1.3.2023

#Vikram/-S.K.S.