Allahabad High Court
Mohd Raza And 8 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 May, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:97686
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5077 of 2024
Applicant :- Mohd Raza And 8 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Faizul Hasan,Mahboob Ahmad Siddiqui
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Mahboob Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants- Mohd. Raza, Zarar, Bilal, Sarfaraz, Guddu, Babu @ Mohd. Imran, Shakir, Anis @ Anis Ahmad and Babu in Case Crime No.135 of 2021, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 188, 323, 336, 307, 332, 353 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, at Police Station- Mainathair, District- Moradabad with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
4. This is the third anticipatory bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected on the ground that applicant had directly approached this Court and no special ground was there vide order dated 24.6.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.12256 of 2021. The second anticipatory bail application was also dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 30.1.2024 of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.14441 of 2021 as the final report (charge-sheet) was submitted and the prayer for granting anticipatory bail was made till submission of charge-sheet only. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that both the orders are not on merits, as such applicant has filed this third anticipatory bail application.
5. As per prosecution story, two factions were found involved in fighting and brick batting with each other including arsoning on 14.5.2021 and the police party are stated to have tried to pacify them, as such two police personnel are stated to have sustained injuries in it.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants have been named in the FIR, but they have been falsely implicated in this case. The applicants have nothing to do with the said offence. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they have co-operated in the investigation and are ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel has further stated that he does not have any knowledge about the criminal antecedents of the applicants.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that applicant no.1 has criminal history of ten cases to his credit and also the other accused persons have criminal antecedents, which has not been explained. Learned A.G.A. has stated that the applicants had filed Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.29653 of 2023 before this Court and the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 6.10.2023. The present anticipatory bail application is not maintainable in the light of the settled law of this Court in the case of Shivam vs. State of U.P. and Another reported in AirOnline 2021 All 484.
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 that applicants have unexplained criminal antecedents coupled with the fact that arguments tendered at bar pertain to regular bail application and cannot be agitated under the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. and also in the light of the judgment of this Court passed in Shivam (supra), I do not find it a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants.
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 :- 28.5.2024/ Vikas
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
