Hanumant Singh Chauhan and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11421 of 2023 Applicant :- Hanumant Singh Chauhan And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ambreesh Kumar Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicants 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 applicants -Hanumant Singh & Neelendra Singh in Case Crime No.190 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station - Bidhuna, District - Auraiya.

¶3It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the sale deed was executed by named accused applicants showing therein the incorrect boundary of the land and thereby dislocating the land of the informant which caused wrongful harm to the informant. F.I.R. was lodged on

24.05.2022 and investigation started which is still 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. In case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶5It is submitted by learned counsel for the accused applicants that accused applicants are innocent. It is further submitted that no wrongful gain has been committed by the present applicants. The sale deed has been executed in respect of the land which belongs to the present applicants. It is further submitted that no wrongful loss has been caused to the informant of this case. It is next submitted that in the sale deed itself, the plot number of the present applicants has been mentioned which was the subject matter of the sale deed. It is also submitted that during investigation, the applicants have been cooperative so far. It is further submitted that no wrongful gain has been made by the applicants for their own benefit. It was fairly conceded that some area of the land of the informant was not shown in the boundary as described in the sale deed but the same may be rectified and the dispute relates to civil nature and as such, applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶6Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer but he has vehemently submitted that with an ulterior motive to grab the property of the informant, the wrong boundary has been shown in the sale deed executed by the applicants. It is also submitted that due to the aforesaid error, the other person has taken possession over the landed property and he is suffering from a huge monetary loss and as such, the applicants are not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶7In the present case as submitted by learned counsel for the informant, the boundary in the sale deed, if incorrectly described may be rectified as per rules. The matter, prima facie, relates to civil nature and now no custodial interrogation is required. They have been cooperative with the investigation of the case.

¶8In 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.

¶9In 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.

¶10Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants 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 applicants till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. in the matter.

¶11The application is allowed.

¶12In 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.

¶13In 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 Shivangi High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad