Sugreev Kumar v. State of U.P.And Another

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11892 of 2023 Applicant :- Sugreev Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶2This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants - Sugreev Kumar seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 483 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 338, 436, 427, 341, 298, 120-B IPC, 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and 3/4 U.P. Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act , Police Station Karhal, District Mainpuri.

¶3Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶4It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that a total number of 31 accused persons have been named in this matter and it was not clear as to on what basis present applicant was named in this case. It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted in the matter and the applicant had been cooperative during course of investigation. It is also submitted that no injury has been caused to any police personnel in the matter. No process under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC has been issued against the applicant and the applicant has not been declared absconder. It is further submitted that similarly placed co-accused Petha @ Shailendra Singh and Kuru @ Anil Kumar Shukla has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 25.8.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. - 8563 of 2023. It is also submitted that in case the 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 but could not dispute this fact that no injury has been caused to any police personnel in this matter and during course of investigation the applicant has been cooperative.

¶6I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶7In this matter, from the perusal of the record it reveals that in the event of suspected cow slaughtering a group became violent and when the police intervened it was attacked by the named accused persons and the police personnel got injuries. F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation charge sheet has been submitted. It also reveals from the perusal of the record that applicant has been cooperative during course of investigation and no police personnel received injury in the incident.

¶8In 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. It 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. It 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, 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.

¶9In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that : "11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87CrPC that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.

¶12Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170CrPC, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."

¶10Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the end of trial.

¶11The application is allowed accordingly.

¶12In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of trial on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall make himself available before the Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the trial.

(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 same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 23.11.2023 ss High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad