Dhruva Lal Nishad v. State of U.P

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11064 of 2023 Applicant :- Dhruva Lal Nishad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Adya Prasad Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shubham Dwivedi Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1Name of Sri Shubham Dwivedi, advocate has wrongly been shown as counsel for the informant whereas he is appearing for the present applicant.

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

¶3Apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.545 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC, Police Station Ram Garh Tal, District Gorakhpur, the applicant - Dhruva Lal Nishad has filed this anticipatory bail application seeking anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime number.

¶4The injured was bitterly assaulted by two named and 15 to 20 accused persons with the aid of lathi, danda and iron rod, who sustained serious injuries. F.I.R. was lodged on 5.9.2023 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 the whole prosecution story is improbable and unnatural. According to the F.I.R., more than 20 persons made an assault upon the single injured person, but he has sustained only two injuries. It is further submitted that the statement of injured himself given before the I.O. u/s 161 Cr.P.C. has material contradictions with the contents of the F.I.R. It is further submitted that out of two injuries found over the body of the injured, one injury is simple in nature and the other was referred for C.T. Scan wherein the doctor opined that no bony injury and no significant radiological abnormality is seen. In this way, only simple injuries have been found upon the person of the injured. It is further submitted that only due to animosity of the village, the applicant has been falsely roped in this matter. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit. It is further submitted that the applicant is cooperating with the investigation of the case 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.

¶6Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and it has been submitted that serious injuries have been caused in the eye of the injured with intention to kill, but however he could not dispute this fact that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit and he is cooperating with the investigation of the case.

¶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 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 :- 27.10.2023 ss High Court of Judicature at Allahabad