Sanjay Gupta vs State Of Uttarakhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 2543 UK

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

     Anticipatory Bail Application No. 207 of 2022

Sanjay Gupta                                     ........Applicant

                              Versus

State of Uttarakhand                          ........Respondent

Present:-
      Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the applicant.
      Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Applicant Sanjay Gupta has sought

anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.05 of 2013, under

Sections 409 IPC, Police Station Pathri, District Haridwar.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. Based on the FIR, the police filed a final report,

but on a protest petition, the final report was rejected and

the applicant and the co-accused have been summoned to

face the trial under Section 409 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") by an order dated

07.10.2015, passed in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2014, Mohd.

Idrish vs. Smt. Naima and other, by the court of Judicial

Magistrate II, Haridwar. Subsequently, the case was

registered as Criminal Case No.2086 of 2015 (for short, "the

case"). Processes were issued to ensure the presence of the

applicant. Non-bailable warrants and proclamation under

Section 82 of the Code were also issued. The applicant

moved an anticipatory bail before the District and

Sessions Judge, Haridwar, which was rejected on

03.08.2022. The applicant challenged the proceedings of

the case in C-482 No.1286 of 2022 (for short, "the

petition"). The petition was taken up for hearing on

27.07.2022, when a statement was given on behalf of the

applicant that, "the applicant wants to appear before

the trial court, in accordance with law, for the said

purpose, the learned counsel for the applicant sought

24 hours' time to file an application". In the petition,

the applicant moved Misc. Application (IA No.1 of 2022)

with the prayer:-

"............................................................................... .............................................................................. ........................."To quash the Bailable Warrants, Non- Bailable Warrants and process issued therein and thus thereafter the applicant shall appear before the Trial Court and thus thereafter appear before the court as being directed by trial court and thus in said light the Criminal Misc. Application as preferred by applicant shall be disposed off, and, or to pass any other appropriate order under the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the applicants, otherwise, the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury".

4. Finally the petition was decided on 05.08.2022.

The Court quashed the warrants and process under

Section 82 of the Code. Again a statement was given on

behalf of the applicant, based on which, liberty was

granted to the applicant, which is noted at para 14 of the

judgment dated 05.08.2022, passed in the petition. The

Para 14 of it, is as hereunder:-

"14. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant shall surrender before the trial court on 06.09.2022. In case, the applicant surrenders before the trial court on 06.09.2022, the trial court shall proceed in accordance with law, and, in case, the applicant fails to surrender on the said date, the trial court will be free to issue appropriate process against the applicant in accordance with law."

5. Now, applicant seeks anticipatory bail.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit

that this is true that the applicant had given a statement

that he would appear in the case on 06.09.2022, but he

apprehends that in the meanwhile he may be arrested.

Therefore, he may be granted anticipatory bail.

7. On the other hand, learned State counsel would

submit that the applicant was issued summons, but he did

not appear; now, he wants to play with the system.

8. Whether anticipatory bail application is

maintainable after filing of the charge-sheet? This

question has already been referred by this Court to the

Larger Bench by an order dated 17.08.2022, passed in

ABA No.76 of 2021, Saubhagya Bhagat vs. State of

Uttarakahnd and another; and connected matters.

9. But here, the issue is somehow different also.

The anticipatory bail application of the applicant was

rejected on 03.08.2022 by the District and Sessions

Judge, Haridwar. In the petition under Section 482 of the

Code, the applicant himself moved an application i.e.

Misc. Application (IA No.1 of 2022), assuring the Court

that the applicant shall appear before the trial court. This

assurance was given while seeking the relief of quashing

warrants and proclamation under Section 82 of the Code.

It has been acted upon by the Court. The petition was

accordingly decided.

10. This Court does not intend to go any further in

the matter. The fact remains that the applicant is a public

servant. It is his case that since 2015 though, summons

were issued but, it had not been served. It is his case that

coercive methods were adopted without even summons

having been served upon him. Be it as it may, when the

applicant came forward to file the petition for quashing

the proceedings of the case, he himself gave an assurance

that he would appear in the trial court.

11. The warrants and proclamation under Section

82 of the Code have already been quashed by this Court

by an order dated 05.08.2022 passed in the petition.

Therefore, now there is no apprehension of arrest of the

applicant. It is the applicant, who has assured the Court

to appear in the case on 06.09.2022.

12. Let the applicant appear before the trial court.

This Court does not find any reasons to modify the order

dated 05.08.2022, passed in the petition.

13. In view of the above, this Court does not find

any reasons to consider the anticipatory bail application.

Accordingly, it deserves to be rejected.

14. The anticipatory bail application is rejected.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 18.08.2022 Sanjay