Allahabad High Court
Mangal Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 12 May, 2023
Bench: Nalin Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:104139
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3731 of 2023
Applicant :- Mangal Singh And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Sharma,Surendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Krishna Dutt Awasthi
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants Mangal Singh and Saurabh seeking anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No. 1167 of 2021, under Sections 354-kha, 452 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Auraiya, District Auraiya.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. 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. It is further submitted that initially in the matter an application under Section 156(3) CrPC was moved by the complainant against the applicants which was dismissed and regarding the same occurrence on the basis of same set of facts present complaint case was moved, concealing the fact of previous application, wherein the applicants have been summoned by the Court concerned. It is further submitted that earlier NCR for the offence under Sections 323, 504 IPC was moved by the wife of Kishanlal wherein the injured was also medical examined and as a counter blast the husband of opposite party no.2 also filed NCR against the present applicants and when no action was taken by the concerned authorities, the mother of the applicants moved an application under Section 156(3) CrPC which was treated as complaint vide order dated 19.11.2021 and the matter is at the stage of summoning. Meanwhile application under Section 156(3) CrPC moved against the applicants by the opposite party no.2, which was treated as complaint and summoning order was passed. The applications moved to High Court through Application U/S 482 No. 4266 of 2022 which was disposed of vide order dated 12.11.2023 with a direction that if the applicants appear before the Court concerned their bail application may be considered in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773. However, the instead of filing the regulation bail application, the applicants chose to file anticipatory bail application. It is also submitted that co-accused have been granted regular bail. 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.
4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
5. In this matter, it reveals that after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance has also been taken by the Court concerned. Offences levelled against the applicants are punishable with the imprisonment upto seven years. During course of investigation, the applicants have cooperated with the Investigating Officer. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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, particularly complying with the order dated 21.3.2023 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid matter.
11. The application stands disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 12.5.2023
safi
