Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. Another

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12132 of 2023 Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Another Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Tripathi 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 Santosh Kumar seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 237 of 2022 under Section 420 IPC, 63, 65 Copyright Act, Police Station-Jagner, District-Agra.

¶3A huge quantity of fake Tata salt was recovered by the police from the shop of the present applicant. FIR was lodged on

22.11.2022 and after investigation charge sheet has been submitted.

¶4It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. The investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned. It is further submitted that the applicant is only a shop keeper, he is not manufacturer of the salt. He was never aware of the fact that dealer/ manufacturer has provided fake Tata salt to him. There is no independent witness of the recovery. During investigation notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. was given by the I.O. to the applicant and he has been cooperative throughout the investigation. He is having no criminal history to his credit and is entitled for anticipatory bail. It has been submitted that 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 being a shop keeper cannot escape his liability as to what stock has been kept in his shop which is intended to be sold. He was very well aware of the fact that the fake Tata salt is being sold by him. During course of investigation sufficient and ample evidence has been collected by him. FSL report also corroborates the prosecution version. Criminal act of the applicant is also dangerous for health and safety of the public at large, as such, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶6In the present matter 182 packets of fake Tata salt which were intended to be sold in the shop of the present applicant has been recovered by the police and charge sheet has been submitted in this matter. The offence is serious.

¶7In this matter, it reveals that after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance has also been taken by the Court concerned. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶8It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶9It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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 view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I deem it not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. Prayer made in the application is refused.

¶11The anticipatory bail application is rejected.

¶12In the last, learned counsel for the applicants has urged that direction be given to the learned Court concerned to consider and decide the bail application of the applicants in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825.

¶13Hence, it is observed that the bail application of the applicants, if moved, shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil case (supra).

¶14It is further directed that the Court concerned while considering the bail application of the applicants in the light of Satender Kumar Antil case (supra), shall pass an order strictly in compliance of the directions given in the aforesaid judgement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in letter and spirit, particularly complying with the order dated 21.3.2023 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid matter. Order Date :- 23.11.2023 Fhd High Court of Judicature at Allahabad