Chandan Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12403 of 2023 Applicant :- Chandan Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶2Apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.256 of 2023, under Sections 427, 379, 411, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 3/5A/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, Police Station Karchhana, District Prayagraj, the applicant - Chandan Kumar has filed this anticipatory bail application seeking anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime number.

¶3It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He has been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on into the matter. Applicant has no concern with the present matter. It is further submitted that no actual slaughtering has taken place in the matter. It is further submitted that a recovery of 16 cow progenies including 12 dead cow progenies has been shown from the D.C.M. Vehicle wherein they are said to be transported. No beef has been recovered from the vehicle. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit. He is not named in the F.I.R. During investigation, his name has been added by the police. At the time of alleged incident, he was not present at the spot. Applicant has been shown to be involved in the said alleged incident on account of the fact that he is the owner of the vehicle. It is further submitted that the applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigation. It is further submitted that no custodial interrogation is required in this matter from the applicant and as such, he is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶4Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and it has been vehemently submitted that sixteen cow progenies including twelve dead cow progenies have been recovered from the DCM vehicle wherein they were being transported in a cruel manner. The offence is serious in nature, therefore a prayer for rejection of anticipatory bail application has been made.

¶5Prima facie it appears from the perusal of the record that a recovery of total 16 cow progenies including 12 dead cow progenies has been made from the vehicle in question wherein they are said to be transported in bad condition. It further appears that the applicant is said to be the owner of the aforesaid vehicle. Investigation into the matter is going on and custodial interrogation of the applicant in this matter prima facie appears to be necessary.

¶6In 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.

¶7Hence, considering 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 not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant. The prayer made in the application is refused.

¶8The anticipatory bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 8.11.2023 ss High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad