Allahabad High Court
Dhanpal And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. on 21 March, 2023
Bench: Nalin Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2616 of 2023
Applicant :- Dhanpal And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Shukla,Vipul Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as the learned AGA and perused the material available on record.
Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants - Dhanpal, Avneesh and Rajnish in Case Crime No.347 of 2022, under Sections 323, 354, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Kanth, District - Shahjahanpur.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have no concern with the present matter. Allegations leveled against the applicants are false. It is further submitted that charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter. Applicants' case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that if the applicants are enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the liberty. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest any time.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer.
I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.
In this matter, as is evident from the record, offences levelled against the applicants are of Sections 323, 354, 452, 504, 506 IPC, which are punishable with the imprisonment upto seven years. The applicants have accorded his co-operation in the investigation. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.
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.
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, likelihood 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 applicants, 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.
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 not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till the end of the trial.
However, it is observed that the bail application of the applicants, if moved, shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825.
On the basis of request of the learned counsel for the applicants, it is further directed that the Court concerned while considering the bail application of the applicant in the light of Satender Kumar Antil case (supra), shall pass an order strictly in compliance of the directions given in the aforesaid judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in letter and spirit.
The application stands disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 21.3.2023/Atul
