Jitendra Prasad Bari v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10669 of 2023 Applicant :- Jitendra Prasad Bari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Zafar Yab Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant 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 applicant -Jitendra Prasad Bari in Case Crime No.90 of 2022, under Sections 379, 411, 413, 414, 467, 468, 472, 482, 483, 489, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station - Siddharth Nagar, District - Siddharth Nagar.

¶3It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the Bolero car of the informant was stolen and an F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons and investigation started and during investigation, the said bulero car was recovered and five persons were held by the police and on the pointing out the aforesaid persons, stolen four wheelers and motorcycles were recovered and the name of the present applicant came into the light on the surface on the basis of the confessional statement made by the applicant. An F.I.R. was lodged on

30.04.2022 as Case Crime No.44 of 2022, under Sections 379, 411, 413, 414, 467, 468, 472, 482, 483, 489, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 207 of M.V. Act.

¶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. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶5It is further submitted that the investigation of the case is going on. It is next submitted that accused applicant is not named in the F.I.R. His name came into light on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused person and that too under the police custody. It is further submitted that the applicant has been cooperative with the investigation of the case and no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession or from the place under the control of the applicant. It is also submitted that the criminal history of the accused applicant has been explained by way of supplementary affidavit and as such, the present applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶6Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and he has raised a point that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against the present applicant. He is a proclaimed offender and as such, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Learned A.G.A. has also submitted that in the connected case, Case Crime No.44 of 2022 aforesaid, which is a off shoot of the present case bearing Case Crime No.44 of 2022, which is the present case. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 22.03.2023 and in respect of that on

07.06.2023, the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against the present applicant in Case Crime No.44 of 2022, which is the present case. It is further submitted that after rejection of the anticipatory bail application by the Sessions court on 19.08.2023, the present applicant moved anticipatory bail before this Court on

13.09.2023 and on 21.06.2023, the anticipatory bail application had already moved before the Sessions court.

¶7In the present case, the applicant, who was granted interim anticipatory bail in the matter, which is the off shoot of the present one and since he was already granted protection by this Court, there was no question of his being absconder.

¶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 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. in the matter.

¶11The application is allowed.

¶12In 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.

¶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 applicant. Order Date :- 24.11.2023 Shivangi High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad