Allahabad High Court
Devraj Singh vs State Of U.P. on 8 April, 2025
Author: Vivek Varma
Bench: Vivek Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50379 Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1382 of 2025 Applicant :- Devraj Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashvani Tripathi,Raghuvansh Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra, counsel for the applicant, Sri V. P. Tripathi, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.
3. This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.195 of 2023, under Section 201 I.P.C., Police Station Raniyan, District Kanpur Dehat, during the trial.
4. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. As per the allegations in the first information report, the son of the informant was shot by the named accused Pushpendra Singh on 05.11.2023 at 01.30 a.m. Consequently he died on the spot. As per C.D. Parcha No.1 dated 05.11.2023 a Field Unit from the local police station arrived at the scene of crime and secured it for collecting necessary evidence. The Field Unit conducted the spot inspection on 05.11.2023 at 03.50 a.m. and collected empty glasses from the dining table as well as blood samples with cotton swab. The said samples were sent to Forensic Laboratory for examination. The informant was examined on 05.11.2023. In the second statement of the informant recorded on 13.11.2023, it was alleged that the applicant had deliberately washed of the blood from the floor and deleted the footage of the C.C.T.V. camera. It is contended that at this stage there is no credible evidence that the applicant had destructed the evidence. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph nos.27, 28, 29 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application and paragraph no.2 of the supplementary affidavit. During the pendency of investigation the applicant was granted the benefit of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. Investigation has been completed. Charge sheet has been filed against the applicant. The applicant had co-operated in the investigation. The applicant has been summoned by the concerned court. Counsel for applicant further contends that the maximum sentence provided for the alleged offence is upto seven years. He submits that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case. In case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
5. Learned A.G.A. for the State could not dispute the fact that the offence against the applicant is punishable upto seven years. He does not dispute the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra).
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) has laid down the guidelines with regard to enlargement of an accused on bail. The guidelines provided category/type of offences. One of the category being Category-A are offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less. The Supreme Court in paragraph-3 of the aforesaid judgment has laid down the guidelines that after the filing of the charge sheet/cognizance ordinary the summons are required to be issued permitting the appearance of the accused through Lawyer and the bail applications of the accused persons on appearance are to be decided without the accused being taken into custody or by granting interim bail. A perusal of the aforesaid guidelines would demonstrate that the liberty of an individual has been recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in term of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
7. It is further to be noted that as per Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also during investigation the liberty of an individual is protected in respect of an offence where the maximum punishment provided is upto seven years.
8. It is not the case of the opposite party that applicant was arrested for the alleged offence during investigation and it is also not the case of the opposite party that the applicant had not co-operated in the investigation. Once no apprehension has been raised with regard to the conduct of the applicant and the applicant has been charge-sheeted and summoned in respect of offence in which punishment provided is upto seven years, then in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the liberty of the individual is required to be protected.
9. It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would disentitle the applicant for relief of anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.
10. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.
11. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations and the fact that the applicant was not named in the first information report, as per C.D. Parcha No.1 dated 05.11.2023 a Field Unit from the local police station arrived at the scene of crime and secured it for collecting necessary evidence, the Field Unit conducted the spot inspection on 05.11.2023 at 03.50 a.m. and collected empty glasses from the dining table as well as blood samples with cotton swab, the said samples were sent to Forensic Laboratory for examination, there is no substantive evidence that the applicant had destructed the evidence, the offence against the applicant is punishable up to seven years and adhering to the guidelines provided in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
12. In the event of arrest, the applicant Devraj Singh, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) the applicant shall make himself available on each date fixed in the matter by the court concerned;
(ii) the applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts to the Court;
(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the concerned court.
13. In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.
14. The application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Manish Kr