Sanjay v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12594 of 2023 Applicant :- Sanjay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sonu Malik Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶2This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Sanjay seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 274 of 2023, under Sections 420, 406, 323, 504, 506, 386, 120B IPC, Police Station-Rajpura, District-Sambhal.

¶3A sale deed was executed by the present applicant in favour of the wife of the informant but some other land was sold whereas the purchaser had been shown another plot which was to be sold. FIR was lodged on 21.8.2023 and investigation started, which is going on against the present applicant.

¶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. Investigation is going on in the matter. It is further submitted that it is wrong to say that the applicant was not the owner of the land which was sold in favour of the wife of the informant. It is further submitted that the land which was agreed upon between the parties to be sold was actually sold in favour of the wife of the informant. It is further submitted that the present applicant was recorded in the revenue records. After execution of the sale deed the name of the purchaser has been mutated in place of the present applicant in the revenue records. It is further submitted that no forgery has been committed by the present applicant. It is also submitted that although a process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued by the Court concerned against the present applicant on 9.11.2023 but as a matter of fact the anticipatory bail of the applicant was rejected by the Sessions Court on 12.10.2023 and on that date the applicant was not a proclaimed offender. It is further submitted that the present applicant for grant of anticipatory bail was moved before the High Court on 8.11.2023 and during pendency of the present applicant process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued under the instructions of the Court on 9.11.2023, as such he is entitled for anticipatory bail. In case 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. It is vehemently argued that the applicant is a proclaimed offender and the anticipatory bail application is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the investigation is going on and ample evidence has been collected against the present applicant.

¶6In the present case process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued during pendency of the application for grant of anticipatory bail moved by the present applicant before this Court. In view of that a rare and exceptional case arises in favour of the applicant in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Dharamraj, 2023 SCC Online SC 1085. Learned A.G.A. while opposing the anticipatory bail application could not dispute this fact that after the purchase of land the name of the purchaser wife of the informant has been mutated in the revenue records. There is no criminal history of the applicant.

¶7In 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, llikelihood 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 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.

¶9Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant 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 applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶10The application is allowed accordingly.

¶11In 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.

¶12In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 8.12.2023 Fhd High Court of Judicature at Allahabad