Bablu @ Girendra Pal Singh and Another v. State of U.P

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13425 of 2023 Applicant :- Bablu @ Girendra Pal Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶2This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the applicants - Bablu @ Girendra Pal Singh and Arun Kumar Singh @ Pappu in connection with Complaint Case No.976 of 2020, under Section 308 IPC, Police Station Rajepur, District Farrukhabad.

¶3On the occasion of Holi festival, an altercation took place between the two groups of the village and the present applicants opened fire and the firearm injury was caused in the right leg of the complainant, which was made by applicant no.2. F.I.R. was lodged on 11.3.2001, but after investigation, a closure report was submitted by the I.O. of the case, against which a protest petition was filed by the complainant. The Magistrate court after making a hearing, rejected the final report and the present applicants were summoned to face trial under section 308 IPC vide order dated

29.6.2001. The said order was challenged by way of Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. - 2502 of 2003 wherein an order was passed to stay the proceedings of the case till further orders vide order dated

21.4.2003. The said applicant is still pending.

¶4It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of their arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. They have been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. It is further submitted that the whole prosecution case is false and fabricated. No evidence has been collected by the I.O. at all against the applicant in the entire investigation and that is why a closure report has been submitted in the matter. It is also submitted that albeit the injury report of injured Vipin reflects that a firearm injury was caused to him, but it was caused in his leg, which is not a vital part of the body. No other injury has been caused to the injured or any other person. It is further submitted that the trial court has proceeded with the matter in the light of the directions given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC 299 and at present, non-bailable warrant has been issued by the Court. It is also submitted that during the entire investigation, the applicants have been cooperative. It is also submitted that the applicant no.2 has no criminal history and criminal history of applicant no.1 has been well explained. Now no custodial interrogation is required in the matter, as the offence alleged against the applicants is punishable with an imprisonment for a maximum period of seven years.

¶5Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, but however could not dispute this fact that during the entire investigation, no evidence was collected by the I.O. against the applicants.

¶6In 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.

¶7Hence, 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 a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till end of the trial in the matter.

¶8The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶9In the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid complaint case, they shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of the trial on their 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 applicants shall make themselves available before the court concerned on the date fixed in the matter;

(ii) The applicants 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 officer;

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶10In case of default of any of the conditions, same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicants. Order Date :- 5.12.2023 ss High Court of Judicature at Allahabad