Allahabad High Court
Suresh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 February, 2023
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12527 of 2021 Applicant :- Suresh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Narayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vishwanath Mishra Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
List revised. No one appears on behalf of the applicant to press this application. Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned Additional Government Advocate is present.
The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 91 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Basgaon, District-Gorakhpur with the prayer that in the event of arrest the applicant may be released on bail.
Heard learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Perusal of record shows that the applicant was released on interim anticipatory bail by order dated 20.9.2021 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
Learned A.G.A. contends the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet on 05.10.2021 on the basis of material premised on credible, clinching as well as documentary evidences showing the complicity of the applicant in commission of the crime. He further submits that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
Perusal of the record goes to show that there is no apprehension of arrest of the applicant nor anything has been averred in the affidavit with regard to threat or apprehension of arrest of the applicant as also learned counsel for the applicant is not present even in revised call which amounts to misuse of liberty granted by this Court.
Object of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains. It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this Court cannot be put in a straitjacket formula, but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from justice, apprehension of tampering the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation, trial or society, etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society.
In the light of above, having heard learned A.G.A. and looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, taking into consideration the role assigned to the applicant as per prosecution case, gravity and nature of accusation as well as reasons mentioned above, this court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power under section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure is made out in favour of applicant.
Accordingly this application under section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
It is open to the court/ authority concerned to proceed in accordance with law.
It is clarified that observations made in this order, at this stage, are limited for the purpose of determination of this anticipatory bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The investigating officer of this case shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusion according to law on the basis of material/ evidences on record.
Registrar (Compliance) is directed to inform about this order the concerned court/authority for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 3.2.2023 DS