Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Kumar @ Rinku vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 May, 2024
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:82413
Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9655 of 2023
Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar @ Rinku
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Srivastava,P.K. Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicant for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.5012 of 2009, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Harraiya, District Basti.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. By order dated 25.08.2023, the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail and applicant has not misused the liberty of bail granted to him. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the applicant's case is entirely covered by provision of Section 438 Cr.P.C. and applicant may be granted anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial. It is submitted that the applicant is apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation.
4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the applicant before filing this anticipatory bail application filed Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.30213 of 2009 (Sankata Prasad and another vs. State of U.P. and another) and coordinate Bench of this Court on 09.12.2009 stayed the further proceeding of the case. Thereafter, by order dated 24.03.2011, application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. had been disposed of with direction that the applicant shall surrender and apply for bail. Again applicant filed application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.32080 of 2022. This Court passed interim order and stayed further proceeding of the case by order dated 09.11.2022. This Court by order dated 21.03.2023 dismissed the Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.32080 of 2022 as not pressed. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant two times filed 482 application and same was dismissed by this Court and in view of judgment passed in Criminal Misc.Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C.No.2110 of 2021, present anticipatory bail application should be rejected.
The Court has held in Para-43 as under:-
"43) However, in the following cases, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to an accused after submission of charge-sheet :-
1) Where the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet but it is argued that the statements of the witnesses recorded are not truthful. Truthfulness or otherwise of the statements of the witnesses recorded by investigating officer in support of complaint case are to be tested during trial and not at the stage of consideration of anticipatory bail application;
2) Where the F.I.R/complaint discloses the alleged offences and the Investigating Officer has collected material which supports the same, without any contradiction, even after considering the statements/material provided by the accused side;
3) Where there are cross cases registered by both the parties against each other and the offences alleged is fully proved and charge-sheet has been submitted. Since the incident, as alleged, has been found to have taken place and both the parties admit such an occurrence, hence, there is no doubt about the incident taking place;
4) Where charge-sheet has been submitted after compliance of the legal formalities like sanction for prosecution and the F.I.R/complaint has been lodged by the competent authority and there is supporting evidence;
5) Where the counterblast implication is alleged that earlier incident took place much before with the incident in dispute and there is no proximity of the second incident in terms of time with the second incident;
6) Where there exists a civil remedy but on the same set of allegations, civil wrong and criminal wrong both are made out and charge-sheet has been submitted only regarding the criminal wrong;
7) Where the Investigating Officer has approached the accused for recording of his statement during investigation and he has refused to give his statement to the Investigating Officer in his defence and charge-sheet has been submitted against him;
8) Where the accused has unsuccessfully challenged the charge-sheet before this Court or any proceedings are pending before this Court regarding the charge-sheet submitted against the accused;
9) Where the offence alleged is serious in nature, the accused is habitual in criminality, tendency of abscondance, has violated the conditions of bail granted to him earlier, etc.; and
10) Where the accused is avoiding appearance before the Court after the cognizance of offence has been taken by the Court on a police report or in a complaint and coercive processes have been repeatedly issued against him and there is no valid explanation given by the accused for his non-appearance before the Court."
5. Learned counsel for the applicant next argued that the applicant' s case is covered by the judgment referred above, as it has been held that after submission of charge-sheet, if the applicant challenge charge-sheet by filing application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected.
6. Since the applicant has already challenged the charge-sheet before this Court by filing Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed, in view of aforesaid judgment, this anticipatory bail application should be dismissed.
7. Considered the arguments raised by both the parties. In view of the judgment passed in Criminal Misc.Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C.No.2110 of 2021 (Shivam vs. State of U.P. and another), no interference is warranted, hence, the present anticipatory bail application is, hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 8.5.2024/SKD
