Ramesh Kumar Gupta and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13123 of 2023 Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Gupta And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants Ramesh Kumar Gupta, Sidhanshu Gupta @ Sudhanshu Gupta and Subham Gupta @ Rajababu seeking anticipatory bail in Case No. 46166 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 242 of 2023, under Sections 323, 506, 308, 427 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Gorakhpur.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶3It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of their arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. Initially F.I.R. was lodged for the offence under Sections 323 and 506 IPC. Injuries received to the injured in the alleged occurrence are simple in nature. Offence under Section 308 IPC is not made out against the applicants. There is a property dispute between the parties. The investigation of the case has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. The applicants have been cooperative during investigation. No process under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC has been issued against the applicants and the applicants have not been declared absconder. In case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶4Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that applicants have actively participated in commission of the alleged crime and ample and sufficient evidence has been collected against them during investigation.

¶5I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶6In this matter, from the perusal of the record it reveals that an assault was made by the accused persons including the present applicants upon the informant / injured Saurabh Kumar Gupta and his father Jagdish Prasad Gupta and they sustained serious injuries. F.I.R. was lodged on 9.7.2023 and investigation started which culminated into charge sheet under Sections 323, 506, 308, 427 IPC. It also reveals that the injured / informant Saurabh Kumar Gupta has sustained serious and grievous injuries and in the C.T. Scan report brain hemorrhage courteous one seen in his left peripheral fronto temporal region. During investigation sufficient and ample evidence has been collected against the applicants. They have actively participated in commission of the crime.

¶7In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that 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.

¶8In 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 170 CrPC 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 173 CrPC. 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 87 CrPC 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 170 CrPC, 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."

¶9Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants, all attending facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that allegations are serious in nature, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants. Prayer made in the application is refused.

¶10The application is rejected.

¶11In the last, learned counsel has urged that direction for expeditious disposal of bail application of the applicants be given.

¶12Hence, it is observed that in case applicants surrender before the court below and apply for bail, the same shall be considered and decided 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. Order Date :- 29.11.2023 safi High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad