Allahabad High Court
Arun Pratap Singh @ Anne And ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 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. - 1619 of 2023
Applicant :- Arun Pratap Singh @ Anne And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Ullah,Mujeeb Khan,Vineet Vikram
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Daga,Kamal Singh
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Arun Pratap Singh @ Anne and Ankit Singh @ Dadda in Case Crime No.57 of 2022, under Sections 452, 354, 354-B, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station - Sirsakalar, District ? Jalaun.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of their arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. The investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned. It has been submitted that in case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
It reveals from the perusal of the record that F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 452, 354, 323, 504, 506 IPC against both the applicants as named accused and they were alleged to make an assault upon the informant after entering into her house and also to outrage her modesty and this incident was happened on 3.5.2022 at 6:00 P.M. and earlier on 30.4.2022, they had abused the informant at her house. The report was not lodged by the police and ultimately, on application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. moved by the informant, by order of the Court, the F.I.R. was lodged on 15.6.2022. It also reveals from the perusal of the record that after investigation, charge-sheet in the matter was filed under Sections 452, 354, 323, 504, 506, 354-B IPC on 29.6.2022 / 1.7.2022. However, after cognizance was taken by the Court on 8.7.2022, an order was passed by the S.P., Jalaun for further investigation into the matter. The statement of the informant was again recorded and CDR details of the informant were also collected and written statement of some other witnesses were recorded and subsequently the Investigating Officer submitted his report wherein it was mentioned that a false F.I.R. was lodged by the informant and the informant herself was not present on spot on the date of the incident. However, after further investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted his report alongwith entire evidence collected during the course of further investigation.
The main contention made by the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant is that process under Section 82, 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued by the court against the applicants and as such they have been declared absconder by the court and hence they are not entitled for protection of anticipatory bail by this Court in this factual scenario. Though no supplementary affidavit to affirm the factum of issuance of process under Section 82, 83 Cr.P.C. has been filed at this stage, but as stated by the learned State counsel, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicants on 1.3.2023 whereas the anticipatory bail application was filed before this Court on 9.2.2023. It means that process under Section 82, 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicants after filing of the anticipatory bail application.
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, 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.
Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant 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 applicant till the end of trial. The prayer made in the application is refused.
However, it is observed that the bail application of the applicant, 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 applicant, it is further directed that the learned 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, particularly complying with the order dated 23.3.2023 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid matter.
The application stands disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 22.3.2023
ss
