Ajay v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12315 of 2023 Applicant :- Ajay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Rajpoot Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶2Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant -Ajay in Case Crime No.0109 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC, Police Station - Madhotanda, District - Pilibhit.

¶3It is alleged in the F.I.R. that when a revenue and police team was assaulted by the named accused person, injured Baljeet Singh intervened but the spear injury was inflicted in his abdomen by the accused persons including the present applicant. F.I.R. was lodged on 30.03.2023 and investigation started which is still going on.

¶4It 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. Investigation is going on in the matter. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶5It is further submitted that no specific role of assault has been assigned to the present applicant in the F.I.R. of the case. It is further submitted that the injured Baljeet Singh in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has also not assigned any specific role of assault by use of spear by the present applicant. It is further submitted that only simple injury has been caused to the injured of this case and he has sustained only one injury which is a puncture wound but in the X-ray report, no bony injury has been seen. It is also submitted that the criminal history of the accused applicant of one solitary case has been explained and he has been cooperative during the course of investigation and as such, he is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶6Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that an active role and participation on the part of the present applicant has been found during investigation in the commission of crime. It is next submitted that the present applicant was present at the time of the incident on the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that the injured Baljeet Singh has sustained injuries in this case and as such, the accused applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶7In the present case, the injured has sustained only one injury and that too is not a bony injury. The applicant is said to be cooperative during the course of investigation so far and now no custodial interrogation is required from the present applicant.

¶8Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer.

¶9In 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.

¶10In 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.

¶11Considering 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. in the matter.

¶12The application is allowed.

¶13In 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.

¶14In 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 applicant. Order Date :- 8.11.2023 Shivangi High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad