Allahabad High Court
Amit And Another vs State Of U.P. on 31 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. - 2182 of 2023
Applicant :- Amit And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vipin Gangwar
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants Amit and Ishwari Prasad seeking anticipatory bail in Complaint No.2873 of 2018, under Sections 452, 354, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Bahedi, District Bareilly.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that 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 applicant has been summoned on the basis of the private complaint and no specific role of incident has been assigned to the present applicants. 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. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
In this matter, it reveals that the cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned. Offences levelled against the applicants are punishable with the imprisonment upto seven years. 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 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. Prayer made in the application is refused.
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.
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, particularly complying with the order dated 21.3.2023 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid matter.
The application stands disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 31.3.2023
Anil K. Sharma
