Allahabad High Court
Ritu Singh vs State Of U.P. on 10 December, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:193562 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11432 of 2024 Applicant :- Ritu Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Pundir,Pawan Singh Pundir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Pawan Singh Pundir, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
4. The present application has been filed for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.232 of 2022, under Sections 420, 120-B I.P.C. and 3, 7, 9, 10 & 11 of UP Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998, Police Station- Kareli, District- Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial.
5. As per prosecution story, after hue and cry over cheating in the Lekhpal Examination (Mains) 2021 conducted by UPSSSC, it was revealed that accused persons Huma Bano and Maldhari Yadav were found involved in cheating and helping the applicant in the said examination, which was revealed in the CCTV footage.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Had the applicant been involved in the said cheating, she would have been arrested at the spot. After she had deposited her copies and had left the examination centre, she has been falsely implicated.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicant is an unmarried girl and she has been subsequently selected in UP Police. The bright future of the applicant will be ruined, if she is sent behind the bars. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is also delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial.
8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that it is an open and shut case as CCTV footage reveals that co-accused person Maldhari Yadav and Huma Bano were involved in cheating and helping the applicant in the Lekhpal Examination (Mains) 2021, as such, she is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
9. In Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2018) 13 SCC 813, the Supreme Court has held that the satisfaction of the court for granting protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is different from the one under Section 439 Cr.P.C. while considering regular bail. In Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs. State of Haryana and another (2023) 8 SCC 181, the Supreme Court has opined that the relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest.
10. A three Judge bench of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.872-873 of 2020 'Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla Vs. Smt. Anita Agarwal & others' held that:
19. It is apposite to mention here the distinction between the considerations which guide the grant of anticipatory bail and regular bail. In Pokar Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (1985) 2 SCC 597, while setting aside an order granting anticipatory bail, this Court observed:
5. Relevant considerations governing the court's decision in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 are materially different from those when an application for bail by a person who is arrested in the course of investigation as also by a person who is convicted and his appeal is pending before the higher court and bail is sought during the pendency of the appeal. Three situations in which the question of granting or refusing to grant bail would arise, materially and substantially differ from each other and the relevant considerations on which the courts would exercise its discretion, one way or the other, are substantially different from each other. This is necessary to be stated because the learned Judge in the High Court unfortunately fell into an error in mixing up all the considerations, as if all the three become relevant in the present situation.
6. The decision of the Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 clearly lays down that "the distinction between an ordinary order of bail and an order of anticipatory bail is that whereas the former is granted after arrest and therefore means release from the custody of the police, the latter is granted in anticipation of arrest and is therefore effective at the very moment of arrest". Unlike a post-arrest order of bail, it is a pre-arrest legal process which directs that if the person in whose favour it is issued is thereafter arrested on the accusation in respect of which the direction is issued, he shall be released on bail. A direction under Section 438 is intended to confer conditional immunity from the touch as envisaged by Section 46(1) or confinement. In para 31, Chandrachud, C.J. clearly demarcated the distinction between the relevant considerations while examining an application for anticipatory bail and an application for bail after arrest in the course of investigation. Says the learned Chief Justice that in regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. It was observed that "it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides, and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond". Some of the relevant considerations which govern the discretion, noticed therein are "the nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and 'the larger interests of the public or the State', are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail". A caution was voiced that "in the evaluation of the consideration whether the applicant is likely to abscond, there can be no presumption that the wealthy and the mighty will submit themselves to trial and that the humble and the poor will run away from the course of justice, any more than there can be a presumption that the former are not likely to commit a crime and the latter are more likely to commit it".
11. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration that the arguments tendered at Bar pertain to regular bail application which cannot be agitated under the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C., I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
12. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected.
13. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of anticipatory bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 10.12.2024 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal)