Uttarakhand High Court
Ranbir Singh Aswal vs State Of Uttarakhand on 18 August, 2022
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 206 of 2022
Ranbir Singh Aswal ........Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant Ranbir Singh Aswal has sought anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.05 of 2013, under Sections 409, 467, 34 IPC, Police Station Pathri, District Haridwar.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. Based on the FIR, the police filed a final report, but on a protest petition, the final report was rejected and the applicant and the co-accused have been summoned to face the trial under Section 409 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") by an order dated 07.10.2015, passed in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2014, Mohd. Idrish vs. Smt. Naima and other, by the court of Judicial Magistrate II, Haridwar. Subsequently, the case was registered as Criminal Case No.2086 of 2015 (for short, "the 2 case"). Processes were issued to ensure the presence of the applicant. Non-bailable warrants and proclamation under Section 82 of the Code were also issued. The applicant moved an anticipatory bail before the District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar, which was rejected on 03.08.2022. The applicant challenged the proceedings of the case in C-482 No.1286 of 2022 (for short, "the petition"). The petition was taken up for hearing on 27.07.2022, when a statement was given on behalf of the applicant that, "the applicant wants to appear before the trial court, in accordance with law, for the said purpose, the learned counsel for the applicant sought 24 hours' time to file an application". In the petition, the applicant moved Misc. Application (IA No.1 of 2022) with the prayer:-
"............................................................................... .............................................................................. ........................."To quash the Bailable Warrants, Non- Bailable Warrants and process issued therein and thus thereafter the applicant shall appear before the Trial Court and thus thereafter appear before the court as being directed by trial court and thus in said light the Criminal Misc. Application as preferred by applicant shall be disposed off, and, or to pass any other appropriate order under the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the applicants, otherwise, the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury".
4. Finally the petition was decided on 05.08.2022. The Court quashed the warrants and process under Section 3 82 of the Code. Again a statement was given on behalf of the applicant, based on which, liberty was granted to the applicant, which is noted at para 14 of the judgment dated 05.08.2022, passed in the petition. The Para 14 of it, is as hereunder:-
"14. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant shall surrender before the trial court on
06.09.2022. In case, the applicant surrenders before the trial court on 06.09.2022, the trial court shall proceed in accordance with law, and, in case, the applicant fails to surrender on the said date, the trial court will be free to issue appropriate process against the applicant in accordance with law."
5. Now, applicant seeks anticipatory bail.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that this is true that the applicant had given a statement that he would appear in the case on 06.09.2022, but he apprehends that in the meanwhile he may be arrested. Therefore, he may be granted anticipatory bail.
7. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the applicant was issued summons, 4 but he did not appear; now, he wants to play with the system.
8. Whether anticipatory bail application is maintainable after filing of the charge-sheet? This question has already been referred by this Court to the Larger Bench by an order dated 17.08.2022, passed in ABA No.76 of 2021, Saubhagya Bhagat vs. State of Uttarakahnd and another; and connected matters.
9. But here, the issue is somehow different also. The anticipatory bail application of the applicant was rejected on 03.08.2022 by the District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar. In the petition under Section 482 of the Code, the applicant himself moved an application i.e. Misc. Application (IA No.1 of 2022), assuring the Court that the applicant shall appear before the trial court. This assurance was given while seeking the relief of quashing warrants and proclamation under Section 82 of the Code. It has been acted upon by the Court. The petition was accordingly decided.
10. This Court does not intend to go any further in the matter. The fact remains that the applicant is a public servant. It is his case that since 2015 though, summons 5 were issued but, it had not been served. It is his case that coercive methods were adopted without even summons having been served upon him. Be it as it may, when the applicant came forward to file the petition for quashing the proceedings of the case, he himself gave an assurance that he would appear in the trial court.
11. The warrants and proclamation under Section 82 of the Code have already been quashed by this Court by an order dated 05.08.2022 passed in the petition. Therefore, now there is no apprehension of arrest of the applicant. It is the applicant, who has assured the Court to appear in the case on 06.09.2022.
12. Let the applicant appear before the trial court. This Court does not find any reasons to modify the order dated 05.08.2022, passed in the petition.
13. In view of the above, this Court does not find any reasons to consider the anticipatory bail application. Accordingly, it deserves to be rejected.
14. The anticipatory bail application is rejected.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 18.08.2022 Sanjay