Allahabad High Court
Banti And Another vs State Of U.P. on 15 April, 2025
Author: Vivek Varma
Bench: Vivek Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:54986
Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2810 of 2025
Applicant :- Banti And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
1. Sri Arun Kumar Sharma, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the informant. The same is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Shashi Kumar Mishra, counsel for the applicants; Sri Arun Kumar Sharma, counsel for the informant; Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.
3. This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.349 of 2024, under Section 76 of B.N.S. and Sections 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Karhal, District Mainpuri, during the trial.
4. Counsel for the applicants contends that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the instant case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 20.09.2024. The first information report was lodged on 24.09.2024. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. The applicant did not act indecently with the victim. Previous enmity exists between the applicants and the alleged eyewitness Kaptan Singh. In this regard reliance has been placed on chalani report dated 29.8.2024 under Sections 170, 126, 135 B.N.S.S., P.S. Karhal, District Mainpuri. During the pendency of investigation, the applicants were granted the benefit of Section 35 B.N.S.S. Investigation has been completed. The applicants had co-operated in the investigation. Charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants. The applicants have been summoned by the concerned court. Counsel for applicants further contends that the maximum sentence provided for the alleged offences is upto seven years. He submits that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773, the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The applicants have no criminal history. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest in the above mentioned case. In case, the applicants are released on anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the said liberty.
5. Learned A.G.A. for the State and counsel for the informant could not dispute the fact that the offences against the applicants are punishable upto seven years. They do not dispute the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra).
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) has laid down the guidelines with regard to enlargement of an accused on bail. The guidelines provided category/type of offences. One of the category being Category-A are offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less. The Supreme Court in paragraph-3 of the aforesaid judgment has laid down the guidelines that after the filing of the charge sheet/cognizance ordinary the summons are required to be issued permitting the appearance of the accused through Lawyer and the bail applications of the accused persons on appearance are to be decided without the accused being taken into custody or by granting interim bail. A perusal of the aforesaid guidelines would demonstrate that the liberty of an individual has been recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in term of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
7. It is further to be noted that as per Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also during investigation the liberty of an individual is protected in respect of an offence where the maximum punishment provided is upto seven years.
8. It is not the case of the opposite parties that applicants were arrested for the alleged offences during investigation and it is also not the case of the opposite parties that the applicants had not co-operated in the investigation. Once no apprehension has been raised with regard to the conduct of the applicants and the applicants have been charge-sheeted and summoned in respect of offence in which punishment provided is upto seven years, then in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the liberty of the individual is required to be protected.
9. It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would disentitle the applicants for relief of anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.
10. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicants fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.
11. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the applicants, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicants, and the fact that the first information report was lodged belatedly, previous enmity exists between the applicants and the alleged eyewitness Kaptan Singh, during the pendency of investigation the applicants were granted the benefit of Section 35 B.N.S.S., investigation has been completed, the applicants had co-operated in the investigation, the offences against the applicants are punishable up to seven years and adhering to the guidelines provided in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
12. In the event of arrest, the applicants Banti and Aman @ Tarun Pratap Singh, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) the applicants shall make themselves available on each date fixed in the matter by the court concerned;
(ii) the applicants 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court;
(iii) the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passports the same shall be deposited by them before the concerned court.
13. In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.
14. The application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 15.4.2025
Manish Kr
