Manish v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12916 of 2023 Applicant :- Manish Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Srivastava,Rakesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Manish seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.846 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 324, 504, 506, 452, 379, 307 IPC, P.S. Highway, District Mathura.

¶2Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶3As per the prosecution story, six named and two unknown accused persons with intention to kill the injured hit his motorcycle with a swift car and also made an assault upon him with the aid of lathi, danda and tamancha and when he tried to escape he was further assaulted in his house and he sustained grievous injuries. FIR was lodged on 18.08.2023, 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. It is further submitted that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Only a general role of assault has been assigned to all the accused persons and no specific role of the present applicant is being found. It is further submitted that even in the statement of the injured himself no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant. It is also submitted that except two fractures in right ulna and left tibia all other injuries are simple in nature and no injury has been caused upon any sensitive part of the body. It is also submitted that contradictory statements have been given by the injured to the IO of the case, when he was interrogated by the IO. It is also submitted that a complaint against the injured has already been made by Devendra Singh, uncle of co-accused Krishna Kant on the date of incident to SSP Mathura. It is also submitted that the present applicant is the student. Criminal history of the applicant has been well explained in the affidavit. The investigation of the case is going-on, he is cooperating with the same 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 will co-operate in the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶5Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the anticipatory bail application and vehemently argued that ample evidence has been collected against the present applicant during the investigation but however, he could not dispute this factual aspect that the injured has not sustained any injury upon any sensitive part of the body.

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

¶7F.I.R. was lodged on 18.8.2023 and investigation started, which is still going on and the applicant has been cooperative with the same so far.

¶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, 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 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, nature of accusation, role of applicant 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 filing of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC before the Competent Court.

¶11The application is allowed accordingly.

¶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 protection granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 1.12.2023 Priya High Court of Judicature at Allahabad