Bhura @ Lokendra and Another v. State of U.P

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12803 of 2023 Applicant :- Bhura @ Lokendra And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants - Bhura @ Lokendra and Kailash seeking anticipatory bail in Criminal Case No.440 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.106 of 2020, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 336, 452, 308 IPC, Police Station Arwakatra, District Auraiya.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶3The named accused persons made an assault on the informant and his family members with the aid of bricks and lathis and they sustained grievous injuries. F.I.R. was lodged on 23.5.2020 and investigation started and now charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter.

¶4It has been argued 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. 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 also submitted that no specific role of assault has been assigned to the present applicant. Injured persons have sustained simple injuries. There is a cross case of the present matter also wherein the F.I.R.was lodged by the present applicant at case crime no.105 of 2020 under sections 147, 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Arwakatra, District Auraiya wherein many persons sustained sustained injuries from the applicant's side. It is also submitted that during investigation, the applicants have been fully cooperative. It is further submitted that the applicants have no criminal history to their credit. It is also submitted that a compromise has taken place in the present matter. In case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶5Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and it has been vehemently argued that there are number of injured persons in this case. The informant has sustained depressed fracture of the parietal bone and as per the opinion of the doctor, the said injury is grievous in nature and dangerous to life. It is also submitted that specific role of assault has been assigned to applicant no.1 and applicant no.2 has also actively participated in the commission of the crime and ample evidence has been collected by the I.O. during investigation.

¶6In this matter, as is evident from the record after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance has also been taken by the Court concerned.

¶7In 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.

¶8Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants. The prayer made in the application is refused.

¶9The anticipatory bail application is rejected.

¶10In the last, learned counsel for the applicants has urged that direction for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicant be given in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825.

¶11However, it is observed that the bail application of the applicant, 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). It is further directed that the learned court concerned, while considering the bail application of the applicant in the light of Satender Kumar Antil case (supra), shall pass an order strictly in compliance of the directions given in the aforesaid judgment 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 :- 30.11.2023 ss High Court of Judicature at Allahabad