Aman @ Aman Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11938 of 2023 Applicant :- Aman @ Aman Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sheetal Prasad Chakravorty 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.

¶2This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Aman @ Aman Pratap Singh seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 294 of 2023, under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Rath, District-Hamirpur.

¶3Due to some old land dispute, the informant and his wife were assaulted by the present applicant and another accused person and during course of incident fire was also made by the co-accused Lakhan Singh Yadav and present applicant with intention to kill the informant. Both the injured sustained injuries. FIR was lodged on 30.06.2023 and investigation started, which is 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. It is further submitted that albeit the role of firing with country made pistol has been assigned to the present applicant but as a matter of fact no fire arm injury has been found upon the body of any of the injured persons. It is further submitted that all the injuries caused to the informant were simple in nature except one injury caused to the informant Uma Shankar Yadav. It is also submitted that no specific role in inflicting the injuries to the injured has been assigned to the present applicant, he has been assigned only a role of firing by country made pistol but since no fire arm injury has been found upon the body of any of the injured persons, it is clear that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the applicant is a student and only to ruin his carrier he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted the the main accused Lakhan Singh Yadav has been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court itself whereas anticipatory bail application of the present applicant was rejected. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he 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 submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR and his active role in the commission of the crime is alleged to have been found in the statement of the eyewitnesses of the case. It is also submitted that both the injured persons have sustained injuries in this matter and the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶6In this matter identically placed co-accused Lakhan Singh Yadav has been granted bail by the Sessions Court itself.

¶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 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.

¶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 applicant. Order Date :- 21.11.2023 Fhd High Court of Judicature at Allahabad