Allahabad High Court
Shyam Jee Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 4 February, 2025
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:15388
Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 800 of 2025
Applicant :- Shyam Jee Yadav
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Raunak Tiwari,Vivek Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No.252 of 2024, under Section 303 B.N.S. & Section 3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station- Adalhat, District Mirzapur.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Allegation in the FIR is that 37 vehicles were seized due to overloading. On 26.12.2024, driver of 20 vehicles forcibly took away seized trucks. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is driver of the truck having no concern with the alleged incident. After depositing the challan amount of the transport department, the challan for compounding fee of Mining Department was also deposited online on 28.12.2024 by the owner of the vehicle. Investigation is going on.
4. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail prayer of the applicant and submitted that there is allegation against the applicant in the FIR that he forcibly took away the vehicle from the custody of the officers. Applicant is a driver of the truck.
5. Considered the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant is, hereby, refused.
6. However, in view of judgment passed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, wherein law has been laid down for arresting a person, which are being reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction:
All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Cr.P.C.;
All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);
The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;
The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention;
The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.
Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.
We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine."
6. In the recent judgment in the case of MD. Asfak Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand and another passed in Criminal Appeal No. (S) 2207 of 2023 decided on 31.07.2023, the Apex Court has reiterated the guidelines given in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).
7. Taking into account the totality of the fact and circumstances of the case and the in the light of the ratio laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and reiterated in the case of MD. Asfak Alam (supra), the freedom of the applicant is protected, provided if the I.O. of the case gives notice to him as provided under Sections 41 and 41(A) of Cr.P.C. and summon the applicant in this case, applicant is obliged to render his fullest cooperation in the investigation.
8. It is made clear that if some credible material is brought on record during investigation against the applicant, then only the I.O. of the case after recording its reason may affect the arrest of the applicant, strictly adhering to the guidelines provided in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and MD. Asfak Alam (supra).
9. With the aforesaid observations, the instant anticipatory bail application stands disposed off.
Order Date :- 4.2.2025
SKD
