Allahabad High Court
Ajeet Sharma vs State Of U.P. on 13 May, 2024
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:85193
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4537 of 2024
Applicant :- Ajeet Sharma
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vikram Shah Sisodia
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard Mr. Vikram Shah Sisodia, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. This anticipatory bail application (under Section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.06 of 2019, under Section 376-D IPC, Police Station Alaoo, District Mainpuri.
3. In short, the prosecution story is that applicant alongwith co-accused Santosh Yadav and Santram have committed rape upon the first informant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, in fact, no such incident has taken place. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant is a government employee posted in UP Police. During investigation, no credible evidence was found against the applicant, hence, final report was submitted. Being aggrieved, the first informant has filed protest petition and the court below while rejecting the final report treated the said protest petition as a complaint case and the court below has recorded the statement of the first informant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and summoned the applicant. He further submits that the applicant has investigated a case being Case Crime NO.499 of 2017 lodged by father in law of first informant and after investigation, the applicant being investigating officer has submitted final report due to this reason the first informant has lodged the impugned FIR on false and concocted allegation and the court belong in a routine manner has summoned the applicant. He further submits that applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 33 of the affidavit. The applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.
5. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant and has prayed for rejection by submitting that the court below has issued NBW against the applicant and the accused applicant is absconding and concealing himself to avoid service of warrant of arrest. Proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have already been initiated against the applicant. He has further submitted that a proclaimed person, who has been absconding from the process of law, is not entitled to the extra-ordinary discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Srikant Upadhyay and others vs. State of Bihar and another in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7940 of 2023, Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) - (2012) 8 SCC 730, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 SCC 171, Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar and another 2021 SCC Online SC 955 and Suresh Babu vs. State of UP and another - 2022 SCC Online ALL 679.
6. I have heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held 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, likelihood 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. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)(2012) 8 SCC 730 has held that "Normally, when the accused is "absconding" and declared as a "proclaimed offender", there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail."
9. Further, the judgment passed in Lavesh (supra) was referred by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 171 and referring to paragraph 12 of the judgment of Lavesh (supra), in paragraph 16 of the said judgment, it was observed as under :
"16.........It is clear from the above decision that if anyone is declared as an absconder / proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail."
10. From the aforesaid case laws, it is evident that as per normal rule, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to an accused, who is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of the process of the Court without offering any legal or plausible justification for his abscondence and has been declared a proclaimed offender.
11. Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant, all attending facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that allegations are serious in nature, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant. Prayer made in the application is refused.
12. The anticipatory bail application is rejected.
13. However, it is provided that in case the applicant approach before the court below and apply for bail, their bail shall be considered and order shall be passed in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 13.5.2024
Ajeet
