Uttam Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11226 of 2023 Applicant :- Uttam Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Uttam Singh seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 298 of 2022, under Sections 308, 147, 323, 336, 352, 506, 427, 120-B IPC, Police Station New Agra, District Agra.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶3It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is also submitted that a general role of assault has been assigned to all the accused persons and no specific role has been assigned to anyone. It is further submitted that the injured Rishi is said to have sustained grievous injury on his nose but the said injury has been caused by the accused Vimal @ Roncho. The investigation of the case has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. Applicant has been cooperative in the investigation. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶4Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that four persons have sustained injuries in this matter and the assault has been made several persons jointly and the present applicant has actively participated in commission of the alleged crime. It is also submitted that injured Rishi has sustained fracture over his nose. It is further submitted that the offence has been committed by all the accused persons in criminal conspiracy after constituting an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons and they have been identified in the CCTV footage.

¶5In this matter, from the perusal of the record it appears that a total number of eight accused persons alongwtih 10-12 unknown persons were alleged to have assaulted the informant and his family members and four persons sustained grievous injuries. F.I.R. was lodged and now after investigation charge sheet has been submitted. It also reveals from the perusal of the record that injured Rishi has sustained fracture over his nose. The offence has been committed by all the accused persons in criminal conspiracy after constituting an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons and they have been identified in the CCTV footage.

¶6In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial. It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶7Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant, all attending facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that allegations are serious in nature, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant. Prayer made in the application is refused.

¶8The application is rejected.

¶9However, it is observed that the bail application of the applicant, if moved, shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825. Order Date :- 18.10.2023 safi High Court of Judicature at Allahabad