Allahabad High Court
Balister vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 February, 2020
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1956 of 2020 Applicant :- Balister Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Tripurari Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Tripurari Pal, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This anticipatory bail application (u/s 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 245 of 2019 under sections 392 IPC, Police Station Gunnaru, District Sambhal, during the pendency of investigation.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. His name has been taken by the co-accused Shyam Yadav, who was having grievance against him because the property of his father-in-law was given to the applicant's brother. He has no criminal history. He has apprehension of imminent arrest. If released on bail he would not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the investigation.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail and has pointed out that FIR under section 174A IPC has already been lodged against the accused-applicant as he was absconding and proceedings under section 82 Cr.P.C. have already been taken against him. Reliance has been placed by him upon the judgment of Hon?ble Supreme Court in Lavesh vs. State (NCT OF DELHI), (2012) 8 SCC 730 in which in paragraph no. 10 reproduced as under:
?10. From these materials and information, it is clear that the present appellant was not available for interrogation and investigation and declared as ?absconder?. Normally, when the accused is ?absconding? and declared as a ?proclaimed offender?, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code is not entitled the relief of anticipatory bail.?
Looking to the aforesaid fact, taking into consideration the gravity of accusation, and there being possibility of his fleeing from justice, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court does not find good ground for enlarging the applicant,Balister on anticipatory bail in this case.
The anticipatory bail application of the applicant Balister is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 28.2.2020 AU