Dharmendra Kumar v. State of U.P

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11943 of 2023 Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajnish Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Dharmendra Kumar seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.106 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, P.S. Soron, District Kasganj.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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 arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that the present applicant is not the husband of the victim / informant and as such no offence under Section 498-A IPC is made out against him. It is also submitted that the present applicant never procured forged signatures of the informant and no government grant has been received by him on the basis thereof. It is further submitted that the informant has a matrimonial dispute with her husband co-accused Updesh Kumar and the present applicant nothing to do with the same. Applicant has no criminal history to his credit. The investigation of the case is going-on and the applicant is cooperating with the same. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶4Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶5I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶6From the perusal of the record it reveals that the present applicant was alleged to procure the photograph of the victim and he also prepared forged Identity Card and on the basis of forged and fabricated signature of the informant / victim, he also opened savings account in the Post Office and also managed to take some government grants on behalf of the victim / informant by making forged signatures of the informant. Meanwhile, informant was married with co-accused Updesh Kumar but he was also having some illicit relation with the co-accused Jully Yadav and he also played fraud with the informant and ultimately he left her. Subsequently, all the accused persons jointly committed some other frauds with the informant. F.I.R. was lodged on 4.3.2023 and investigation started, which is still going on. It also reveals from the perusal of the record that the applicant has been cooperative with the investigation so far and he has no criminal history to his credit.

¶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, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC before the Competent Court.

¶10The application is allowed accordingly.

¶11In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail 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 :- 1.11.2023 safi High Court of Judicature at Allahabad