Geetam Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11927 of 2023 Applicant :- Geetam Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Subhash Chand Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶2This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants-Geetam Singh and Ashu @ Ashish seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 163 of 2023, under Sections147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Sasni Kotwali, District-Hathras.

¶3Four named and 2-3 unknown persons held the informant on road for some old animosity and applicant no.2 and co-accused Nikhil opened fire upon him with intention to kill. Applicant no.1 was also accompanying, however any how the informant rescued. FIR was lodged on 14.06.2023 and investigation started, which is going on.

¶4It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. Investigation is going on in the matter. It is further submitted that it is a no injury case although a role of firing has been assigned to applicant no.1 but as a matter of fact no fire arm injury has been inflicted upon the informant or any person of this case. It is further submitted that the applicant no.1 assigned no role except accompanying. It is also submitted that the applicants are cooperating with the investigation. Criminal history of the applicants has been sufficiently explained. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession or from the place under control of the present applicants and the alleged recovery is said to be made on the pointing out of the co-accused persons. In case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶5Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is vehemently submitted that fire has been made upon the informant with intention to kill but it was his luck, he rescued.

¶6Present is a case of no injury. Applicants are said to be cooperative 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, llikelihood 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 filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶10The application is allowed accordingly.

¶11In the event of arrest of the applicants, they shall be released on anticipatory bail 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 them 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 interim protection granted to the applicants. Order Date :- 8.11.2023 Fhd High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad