Allahabad High Court
Prashant Srivastava vs State Of U.P. on 17 May, 2024
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:89861
Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12658 of 2023
Applicant :- Prashant Srivastava
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Prakhar Saran Srivastava,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajnish Dubey
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Prakhar Saran Srivastava; Sri Pankaj Diwedi, learned counsel for informant and learned AGA for State.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Prashant Srivastava, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 43 of 2023, under Section- 147, 148, 149, 307/34, 504, 506 and 120B of IPC, Police Station-Georgetown, District- Prayagraj.
There is allegation against the applicant that he has made attempt on the life of his brother-in-law and his wife, Ankita, also had role in causing the alleged offence..
Learned Senior counsel for the applicant has submitted that wife of applicant, Ankita, has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail vide Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3514 of 2023 on 31.03.2023. He has pointed out that medical examination report of the applicant was not worth reliance because of following reasons:-
"(1) the name of the patient examined has not been shown in the medical report. In the medical report the name of the person examined has been shown as "unknown";
(ii) as per the FIR version the informant left his house at 08:00 p.m. while the medical examination report shows that he was examined at the hospital at 07:56 p.m. This contradiction is irreconcilable in nature and damages the very basis of the prosecution case;
(iii) the only identification available on the medical report is in the form of a thumb impression which has not been matched with the complainant's thumb impression till date;
(iv) as per the medical report the informant/injured was brought to the hospital by Constable No. 1750 Shiv Kumar Yadav of George Town Police Station. His statement has not been recorded till date.
(v) the First Information Report was lodged at 04:00 am. on 16.02.2023 in the morning on the application of the injured himself. It doesn't sound to reason that an injured person who was in such a bad state, that he could not even tell his name in the night of 15.02.2023, recovered so well that he wrote the first information report himself;
(vi) In his statement the injured/informant has not been able to explain as to why in the medical examination report his name was not mentioned;
(vii) no G.D. entry has been made in the Police Station George Town regarding the injured having been brought to the police station at any point of time;
(viii) the examining doctor of the SRN Medical College has not been examined till date. No other medical personnel from the concerned hospital has been examined by the investigating officer."
Learned Senior counsel for applicant has further submitted that in the X-ray examination of the injured, no gun shot injury was seen. The medical board was constituted for examination of the injured, Pankaj @ Anuj Jaiswal, wherein on the basis of documents produced, the Board opined that it is not clear whether the person who was medically examined was, Pankaj @ Anuj Jaiswal or not. It has been submitted that there is long drawn property dispute between the injured and the wife of the applicant. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has criminal history of three cases to his credit while the informant has criminal history of nine cases explained in paragraph nos. 38-40 of the affidavit respectively. The applicant has definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time.
Learned AGA and learned counsel for informant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant. They have submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, he is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
After considering the rival submissions this court finds that there is a case registered/about to be registered against the applicant. It cannot be definitely said when the police may apprehend him. After the lodging of FIR the arrest can be made by the police at will. There is no definite period fixed for the police to arrest an accused against whom an FIR has been lodged. The courts have repeatedly held that arrest should be the last option for the police and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative or his custodial interrogation is required. Irrational and indiscriminate arrests are gross violation of human rights. In the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1994 SC 1349 the Apex Court has referred to the third report of National Police Commission wherein it is mentioned that arrests by the police in India is one of the chief source of corruption in the police. The report suggested that, by and large, nearly 60 percent of the arrests were either unnecessary or unjustified and that such unjustified police action accounted for 43.2 percent of expenditure of the jails. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental rights and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative. According to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the peculiar case the arrest of an accused should be made.
Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. The applicant shall not leave the country during the pendency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
2. The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
3. That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
4. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.
5. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
6. The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt. Advocate/concerned court is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
Order Date :- 17.5.2024
Abhishek
