Allahabad High Court
Ruby vs State Of Up Another on 7 March, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:41106 Court No. - 75 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 612 of 2024 Applicant :- Ruby Opposite Party :- State Of Up Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raj Pandey,Shubham Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jai Prakash Singh Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jai Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material placed on record.
3. The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.188 of 2023, under Sections 506, 420, 120B, 195, 211 IPC & Section 67A I.T. Act, Police Station Ramala, District Baghpat, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, there was a dispute regarding the property which was erected by Yashpal on the land belonging to pond. The named accused persons, namely, Yashpal, Poonam and Rajeev, are stated to have threatened the informant that they shall get him and other family members implicated in fake criminal cases.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the co-accused person Vipin Kumar Tomar has been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.12124 of 2023 and the case of the applicant is at par with him as he was not named in the FIR and the applicant is also not named in the FIR. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant, being a lady, has been falsely implicated in the present case of honeytrap. She has nothing to do with the said offence. Subsequently, at the stage of taking of cognizance by the C.J.M. concerned, Sections 195 and 211 I.P.C. have been deleted.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that the criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained as she has been falsely implicated in several other cases and she is on bail in all of those cases. She is on bail in following cases:
(i) Case Crime No.443 of 2023, under Section 120B I.P.C. and 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act, P.S. Baghpat, District Baghpat.
(ii) Case Crime No.147 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Ramala, District Baghpat.
(iii) Case Crime No.144 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Baghpat, District Baghpat.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicant has been enlarged on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.817 of 2023, under Sections 307, 504, 506, 120B I.P.C., Sections 3/5A/8 Cow Slaughter Act & Sections 3/4/25 Arms Act, P.S. Baghpat, District Baghpat, although the said bail order has not been uploaded on the Website of this High Court yet, as such the certified copy could not be filed by the applicant. Under such circumstances, the applicant is entitled for anticipatory protection in the instant case.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the instant case does not fall within the purview of Section 438 Cr.P.C. as the applicant has long criminal antecedents. Learned counsel for the informant has placed reliance on the fact that the applicant is a member of a larger gang involved in instituting fake FIRs against person entangling them in the cases of honeytrap and extracting money from them.
9. Learned counsel for the informant has also placed reliance on annexure no.CA-2 to the counter affidavit dated 20.02.2024, wherein there are seven cases lodged by the applicant against several persons. Learned counsel has further placed reliance on the general diary, whereby the husband of the applicant Mustafa was arrested by the police and from his possession one mobile phone was recovered, which was used in the said offence. Learned counsel has further stated that the counsel for the applicant has not responded to the said annexure no.CA-2 to the counter affidavit dated 20.02.2024 in his rejoinder affidavit and has stated that he shall respond to the said cases at the time of argument.
10. Learned counsel for the informant has further stated that the applicant had filed a case and the trial was undertaken as S.T. No.179 of 2021 (Computer No.404 of 2021) and the accused persons (10 in all) therein were acquitted by the Court concerned vide order dated 15.11.2022 and the Court was pleased to proceed under Section 344 Cr.P.C. by registering criminal miscellaneous case against the applicant, who was the informant in the said case. The applicant was convicted by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Baghpat, Court No.2 vide order dated 11.02.2023 and a fine of Rs.500/- was imposed on her, as such the applicant is not entitled for interim protection in the instant case.
11. 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.
12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the rival submissions and the fact that the menace of falsely implicating the accused is on the rise in the society as the parameters of the society are very fastly changing with time coupled with the fact that the applicant has instituted seven FIRs against different persons and has been convicted in one of those cases, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
13. The arguments tendered at bar pertain to regular bail application and cannot be agitated at the stage of 438 Cr.P.C. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected.
14. 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 :- 7.3.2024 Ravi Kant (Krishan Pahal, J.)