Javed v. State of U.P

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12341 of 2023 Applicant :- Javed Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

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

¶2Apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.154 of 2023, under Sections 307, 465 IPC, Police Station Sarsawa, District Saharanpur, the applicant - Javed has filed this anticipatory bail application seeking anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime number.

¶3It was alleged in the F.I.R. that the named accused persons travelling in a car opened fire upon the police party and fled away, leaving the car on spot. It was found by the police that the said car was being driven with forged number plate. The accused-persons were identified by the police party itself on spot and F.I.R. was lodged on 9.6.2023 and investigation started, which is still going on.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicant submits that that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He has been falsely implicated in this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on into the matter. It is further submitted that no injury has been caused to any of the police personnel or any person from the accused side in the alleged incident. It is further submitted that the applicant was the owner of the Car, which was allegedly recovered from the place of occurrence, but as a matter of fact, prior to the date of occurrence, the said vehicle was sold by the applicant in favour of one Sunej s/o Tahir and the vehicle was handed over to him and since then the applicant has absolutely no concern with the aforesaid vehicle. It is also submitted that there is no independent witness of the said occurrence and it is alleged that the applicant was identified by the police personnel only. It is further submitted that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the place under control or from the possession of the applicant. It is also submitted that co-accused Ajim has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 6.9.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. - 10104 of 2023. It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit and he is cooperating with the investigation. It is further submitted that is a no injury case. No custodial interrogation is required in the matter and as such, the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶5Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶6In the present case, no injury has been caused to any person in the alleged incident. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit and he is cooperating with the investigation.

¶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, 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 the filing of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶10The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶11In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the filing of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court 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 :- 17.11.2023 ss High Court of Judicature at Allahabad