Allahabad High Court
Kanhaiya Yadav And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 May, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:83442
Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4390 of 2024
Applicant :- Kanhaiya Yadav And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Bahadur Maurya
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Amar Bahadur Maurya, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed on behalf of applicants- Kanhaiya Yadav and Manish Yadav for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.159 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Baluwa, District Chandauli, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicants alongwith four other named accused persons and 3-4 unknown persons are stated to have intercepted the informant and Chandra Shekhar Yadav on 31.07.2016 at 7:15 p.m., whereby grievous injuries were sustained by Chandra Shekhar Yadav.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. There are general allegations against six named and about four unnamed persons. The injuries sustained are simple in nature as no fracture has been observed in the CT scan. Only cerebral hematoma has been observed in fronto perital lobe. Learned counsel has further stated that the said injury cannot be stated to be of serious in nature. The other injured person has not sustained any visible injury. He had only complaint of pain in his body. Learned counsel has also stated that they have cooperated during investigation as they were granted protection till the submission of report U/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. in the criminal writ filed before this Court, as such they are entitled for anticipatory bail.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the applicants have not let the case committed to the Court of Sessions as the summons were issued against them on 9.2.2017 and they are absconding since then.
7. In Kartarey and others Vs. The State of U.P. (1976) 1 SCC 172, theSupreme Court has opined that to be an 'absconder' in the eye of law, it is not necessary that a person should have run away from his home, it is sufficient if he hides himself to evade the process of law, even if the hiding place be his own home.
8. In Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2018) 13 SCC 813, the Supreme Court has held that the satisfaction of the court for granting protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is different from the one under Section 439 Cr.P.C. while considering regular bail. In Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs. State of Haryana and another (2023) 8 SCC 181, the Supreme Court has opined that the relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest.
9. A three Judge bench of the Supreme Court in Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla vs. Smt. Anita Agarwal & others, AIR 2021 SC 277, broadly demarcated the distinction between the considerations which guide the grant of anticipatory bail and regular bail. It stated that in Pokar Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (1985) 2 SCC 597, while setting aside an order granting anticipatory bail, this Court observed that the relevant considerations governing the court's decision in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 are materially different from those when an application for bail by a person who is arrested in the course of investigation as also by a person who is convicted and his appeal is pending before the higher court and bail is sought during the pendency of the appeal. Three situations in which the question of granting or refusing to grant bail would arise, materially and substantially differ from each other and the relevant considerations on which the courts would exercise its discretion, one way or the other, are substantially different from each other. It further stated that the judgement of the Constitution Bench inGurbaksh Singh Sibbiavs.State of Punjab(1980) 2 SCC 565 in para 31, Chandrachud, C.J. clearly drew the distinction between the relevant considerations while examining an application for anticipatory bail and an application for bail after arrest during investigation. In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. It was observed that "it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond". Some of the relevant considerations which govern the discretion, noticed therein are "the nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and 'the larger interests of the public or the State', are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail".
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants. The arguments tendered at bar pertain to regular bail application and cannot be agitated at the stage of 438 Cr.P.C.
11. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected.
12. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of anticipatory bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 9.5.2024
Ravi Kant
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
