Allahabad High Court
Sachin Agarwal vs State Of U.P. on 18 November, 2024
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:180213 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10872 of 2024 Applicant :- Sachin Agarwal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Gautam,Rajesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned counsel for the informant; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicant for enlarging him on bail in Complaint Case No.898 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. Sachin Agarwal and another) under Sections 323, 386, 504, 506, 406, 420, 452 I.P.C., P.S. Chandpur, District Bijnor.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. On perusal of contents of complaint, no case is made out against the applicant under the alleged sections. It is next submitted that the applicant will co-operate in the trial proceedings. Instant complaint is malicious prosecution. Reliance has been placed upon para 38-40 of the judgment of Apex Court in the Case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. Vs. The State of U.P. Further submission is that the whole prosecution story is false and malicious. It is next submitted that the applicant's case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the applicant is apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation.
4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. and counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that prima facie offence against the applicant is made out. The applicant moved regular bail application and thereafter, he moved interim bail which was allowed vide order dated 06.10.2024 by the court concerned. Thereafter, the applicant failed to appear on the hearing of the regular bail application, hence the court concerned proceeded to issue non bailable warrant against the applicant. Thereafter the applicant challenged the complaint case No.898 of 2024 and non bailable warrant before this Court by filing Application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.35324 of 2024 and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.10.2024 disposed of the application with direction that if the applicant applies for bail the same shall be considered by the court concerned and stayed the arrest of the applicant for a period of five weeks. Thereafter the applicant moved anticipatory bail before the trial court and the trial court vide order dated 28.10.2024 rejected the anticipatory bail considering that earlier, the applicant applied for interim bail and he was granted inteim bail but he did not appear, hence the non bailable warrant has been issued. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected.
5. 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 Apex 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.
6. Considered the argument raised by counsel for the applicant and perused the record. Prima facie, offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant moved regular bail and in regular bail, he was granted interim bail but he did not appear, hence N.B.W had been issued against the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant challenged the complaint and N.B.W. by filing Application U/s 482 No.35324 of 2024. After that applicant filed the instant anticipatory bail application which is not maintainable as the applicant earlier moved regular bail application and he was granted interim bail but he failed to appear for final hearing of regular bail. This Court is of the view that after availing remedy under Section 439 Cr.P.C., applicant's bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained. The reliance placed upon the judgment of Apex Court by counsel for the applicant has no application as the facts of the case is different in the instant case. I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
7. The present anticipatory bail application is accordingly, rejected.
8. 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 :- 18.11.2024 Meenu Singh