Pawan Porval and 3 Others v. State of U.P

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11610 of 2023 Applicant :- Pawan Porval And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vishnu Kant Tiwari,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1Vakalatnama filed by Sri Anand Patti Tiwari, advocate on behalf of the informant is taken on record.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶3This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants - Pawan Porwal, Pallavi, Uma Devi and Sanjeev Kumar seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.313 of 2023, under Sections 120-B, 323, 506, 376, 328, 406 IPC, Police Station Friends Colony Etawah, District Etawah.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicants submits that that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. They have been falsely implicated in this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on in the matter and no charge-sheet has been submitted. Applicants were not involved in this matter in any way. It is further submitted that the main accused of the case namely, Gaurav Porval has been granted anticipatory bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.10.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. - 11463 of 2023. Case of the present applicants stands on better footing. Applicant no.2 & 3 are ladies. No offence, as alleged in the F.I.R., is made out against the applicant. Applicants are cooperating with the investigation. No custodial interrogation is required in the matter from the applicants. In case the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶5Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶6In this matter, investigation is going on and the applicants are said to be cooperative during investigation. No custodial interrogation appears to be required in the matter.

¶7In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held 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.

¶8In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶9Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till the filing of police report under section 173

(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶10The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶11In the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail till the filing of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

(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 him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶12In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicants. Order Date :- 19.10.2023 ss High Court of Judicature at Allahabad