Allahabad High Court
Anshuman Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko ... on 17 February, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10244
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 168 of 2025
Applicant :- Anshuman Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Akshay Kumar Singh,Arun Singh,Palak Jawa
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record.
3. The instant application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 71 of 2024, under Sections 147, 323, 307, 325 and 504 IPC, Police Station Sheogarh, District Raebareli.
4. As per the prosecution story, the applicant including other accused persons attacked with the Axe over the head of the injured persons and they have received traumatic injury.
5. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that there is allegation in the First Information Report that the applicant and other accused persons attacked with the Axe, whereas the injury report is evident that the injured have received injuries with hard and blunt object which belies the prosecution story. He next submits that there was a scuffle in between the parties and both the parties have received injuries and this could not be segregated at this stage that which party is aggressor. He also submits that the applicant is cooperating in the investigation proceeding and there is no previous criminal history of the applicant. He further submits that there is no requirement of custodial interrogation in this matter, however, there is an acute apprehension that the police will arrest the present applicant and therefore, he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
6. It is further argued that the arrest of the applicant was stayed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.1961 of 2024 and thereafter, the applicant alongwith the other co-accused persons presented themselves before the Investigating Officer as there was a direction that they shall cooperate in the investigation and the police officer without taking the applicant into custody, has recovered the weapon allegedly used in the offence showing the recovery on the pointing out of the applicant though no such weapon has ever been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant. He also submits that in fact without taking into the custody, no evidence could be collected. He next submits that in fact the applicant had already been granted protection by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.03.2024. He next submits that the nature of injuries are apparent that the same are caused with the hard and blunt object whereas the allegation is that the sharp edged weapon is used which also contradicts the story of the prosecution.
7. He also argued that the applicant had also approached this Court while instituting an Application U/S 482 No.11737 of 2024, wherein the following order was passed:-
"Heard Ms Palak Jawa, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and Shri Vineet Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, who has filed his Vakalatnama, the same is taken on record.
The present application has been filed for the following main relief:-
"(i) An order or direction to quash the impugned order dated 07.10.2024, whereby bailable warrant has been passed against the petitioner and cognizance order dated 22.05.2024, passed by the Ld. A.C.J.M-IV, Raebarelli in Case No.8668 of 2024 along with the charge sheet dated 25.04.2024 and other consequential proceedings contained in Annexure No.1 (Colly) with this petition.
(ii). An order or direction to direct the Opposite Party No. 2 and 3 to not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in the abovementioned case."
After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that liberty may be given to the applicant to file bail application before the trial court, which may be decided in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 S.C.R. 351: (2022) 10 SCC 51 as also to prefer a discharge application before the court below and the same may be decided expeditiously.
Learned AGA has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant.
Keeping in view the aforesaid, the present application is disposed of with liberty as prayed for and with a direction to the court below that if the applicant apply for bail before the Court concerned, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
Liberty is also granted to the applicant to move discharge application before the court below and the same shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
Taking note of the facts of the case and also the observation made in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (Supra), this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to observe that it is expected from the Police Officer concerned that for a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant applies for bail, whichever is earlier, he would not take any coercive action against the applicant in the aforesaid case.
With the aforesaid observations, the present application is disposed of. "
8. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the Division Bench of this Court while considering the matter on merits has accorded the benefit of the ratio of judgment of Satender Kumar Antil 's case to the applicant and thereafter, he approached to the trial court, wherein the bail application of the applicant was rejected treating the same as a regular bail application. He also submits that the alleged recovery of the weapon is after about 45 days of the alleged incident and as such the whole story of the prosecution is demolished. Further submission is that the approximate identically situated co-accused persons have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail, therefore, the present applicant is also entitled to the same. Next submission is that the applicant has a case criminal history which has been explained and he has cooperated in the investigation proceedings and the chargesheet has been filed and as such the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that there are specific allegation in the statement of the injured that the applicant has used the Axe and therefore, the role of the present applicant is distinguishable from role of the other co-accused persons. He also added that after the interim protection granted to the applicant by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the applicant including the other co-accused persons produced themselves before the Investigating Officer and they admitted their sin and on the pointing out of the present applicant the Axe i.e. the weapon used, was recovered. He further submits that in the interim protection granted by this Court there was no bar that the investigation would not proceed and recovery of the weapon is one of the action so as to proceed with the investigation and therefore, the recovery of the weapon is not against any provision of the Evidence Act. Next submission is that the injured has received very serious injuries, as many as five-six injuries have been received and the applicant has a case criminal history thus submission is that looking into the seriousness of the offence, he is not entitled for bail.
10. Learned A.G.A. has also supported that version of the counsel for the applicant and submits that after thorough investigation, it was found that the role of the present applicant is distinguishable and therefore, he is not entitled for any relief.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the weapon i.e. Axe is recovered on the pointing out of the present applicant and therefore, the role of the present applicant is distinct than the role of the other co-accused persons. The injured have received as many as five injuries and there seems to be the repeated attack which shows the intention of the applicant. Further, the statement of the injured is also enough to show that it is the applicant who has assaulted him with Axe.
12. This Court finds that the nature of the offence is serious and role of the present applicant is distinguishable from role of the other co-accused persons and there is a case criminal history and it seems that if the applicant is released on anticipatory bail he may threaten the witnesses and would tamper the evidences.
13. In view of abovesaid submissions and discussions, this Court do not find any good ground to intervene, resultantly the anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 17.2.2025
Mohd. Sharif
