Tej Singh and 9 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13430 of 2023 Applicant :- Tej Singh And 9 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Pandey,Diksha Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶3Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants -Tej Singh, Ramesh Nath, Surjeet Kumar, Sanjeev Nath, Rajveer Nath, Sanjay Nath, Dinesh Nath, Umesh Nath, Nivesh Nath & Duppi in Case Crime No.0179 of 2023, under Sections 147, 149, 179, 323, 504, 352, 336, 436, 427 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, Police Station - Mohammadabad, District - Farrukhabad.

¶4It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the free fight took place between the two rival groups and the police intervened. An F.I.R. was lodged against ten named accused persons and 15-20 unknown persons on 12.08.2023 and investigation started, which is still going on.

¶5It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. Investigation is going on in the matter. In case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶6It is further submitted that the prosecution story is not plausible and natural as it is not clear as to how, the police came to know the name of the present applicants in the crowd of several persons. It is next submitted that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by the police and no injury has been caused to any person or any police personnel. It is also submitted that it is a no injury case. It is further submitted that the applicants have no criminal antecedent to their credit except applicant no.4, who has a criminal history of one solitary case, which has been explained properly by way of supplementary affidavit. It is next submitted that the accused applicant has been cooperative with the I.O. of the case during the course of investigation and as such, he is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶7Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. However, he could not dispute the factual aspect that no person had sustained injury in this present case.

¶8In the present case, the applicants have been cooperative with the I.O. of the case during the course of investigation.

¶9In 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.

¶10In 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.

¶11Considering 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 filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. in the matter.

¶12The application is allowed.

¶13In the event of arrest of the applicants, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their 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 applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

(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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

(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.

¶14In 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 applicants. Order Date :- 12.12.2023 Shivangi High Court of Judicature at Allahabad