Allahabad High Court
Sardar Ramandeep Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 September, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 14358 of 2021 Applicant :- Sardar Ramandeep Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Murari Lal Jain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Om Prakash Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
Apprehending his/her arrest, applicant Sardar Ramandeep Singh has moved present application for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Case Crime No. 412 of 2015, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Etmadpur, District Agra.
Learned counsel for applicant submitted that FIR of this case has been lodged on the basis of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Ramandeep Singh and Bhagwan Swaroop Sharma had purchased plot no.8 on 19.08.2011 from Akbar Cooperative Society, Agra. Informant has given complaint after four years from the date of sale deed. Plot of informant is separate but he is disputing the present plot. Applicant has moved Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.10084 of 2016, in which, protection has been granted in favour of the applicant on 05.05.2016. On 30.03.2021, co-accused Bhagwan Swaroop Sharma has been arrested then applicant came to know about the charge sheet. No notice and warrant has been received by the applicant. The allegation against the applicant that he had purchased the same land as was sold previously by the informant, is wrong. There is no prima facie offence against the applicant as alleged in the FIR. Entire case of the prosecution is mala fide with intention to harass the applicant. Accusation of the applicant is with the object of humiliation. Entire prosecution story is concocted and false. Applicant has no criminal history. There is no possibility of the applicant to flee from justice. Arrest of the applicant is not warranted. Applicant shall cooperate with the investigation/trial proceedings. Apprehension of arrest is based on reasonable ground.
Learned A.G.A. objected the anticipatory bail application and submitted that previously Fhazaloo Rahman has sold plot no.8 to informant on 31.08.2005 and thereafter, same plot has been resold by Fhazaloo Rahman to the applicant and Bhagwan Swaroop Sharma by conspiracy and applicants are threatening the informant for life. Charge sheet has been filed in 2017 against the applicant and involvement of the applicant is clearly shown in the charge sheet. For about 5 years, after charge sheet, applicant is not cooperating the Trial and non-bailable warrant has been issued against him. Offence committed by the applicant is of serious nature. Applicant has not followed the maxim "Let the buyer beware (Caveat Emptor)". Thus, anticipatory bail application lacks merit and is liable to be rejected.
Anticipatory bail being an extraordinary privilege should be granted only in exceptional cases the judicial discretion conferred upon the Court has to be properly exercised after proper application of mind to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the Court must record the reasons there for. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. It is also held that the privilege of pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases as held in P Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24 and Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1.
Considering the nature and gravity of accusation, specific and active role attributed to the applicant, the alleged accusation does not appear to be prima facie false or groundless, apprehension of arrest of the applicant has not found on reasonable ground. No case has been made out for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. Undeserving and unwarranted sympathy towards accused is not expected by Law.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of accusation, submission of the parties and materials available on record, applicant Sardar Ramandeep Singh does not deserve anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant is rejected.
Order Date :- 5.9.2022 Priya