Sahil Lari @ Shahil v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11005 of 2023 Applicant :- Sahil Lari @ Shahil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saroj Kumar Dubey,Ashok Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1Supplementary affidavit filed in the matter is taken on record.

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

¶3Apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.544 of 2023, under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Deoria, the applicant - Sahil Lari @ Shahil has filed this anticipatory bail application seeking anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime number.

¶4The prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that two named accused persons including the present applicant along with one unknown person made an assault upon Alok Gupta, the son of the informant, on a public place and he was hit by an iron rod upon his head and sustained grievous injuries. F.I.R. was lodged on the same day i.e. 28.6.2023 and investigation started, which is going on.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant submits that that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He has been falsely implicated in this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on into the matter. It is further submitted that no specific role of assault has been assigned to any accused person in this case. It is also submitted that only two injuries have been inflicted on the body of the injured. Although the doctor has advised for x-ray, but as a matter of fact, no x-ray was performed and there is no supplementary medical report on record. It is further submitted that the co-accused Rafi Ahmed has been granted regular bail from the Sessions Court. It is further submitted that the applicant was having a criminal history of one solitary case and that has been explained sufficiently in the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application. It is also submitted that investigation into the matter is going on and the applicant has been cooperative with the investigation so far. No custodial interrogation is required in the matter. In case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶6Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and it has been submitted that the doctor in his statement given to the I.O. has stated that the injuries caused to the injured are serious in nature, but however he could not explain this fact as to why the x-ray was not performed in respect of the injuries sustained by the injured.

¶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 and keeping in view the fact that no x-ray was performed in respect of the injuries of the injured person and there is no supplementary medical report on record, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant 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 applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the filing of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on his 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 applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

(ii) The applicant 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 applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him 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 applicant. Order Date :- 26.10.2023 ss High Court of Judicature at Allahabad