Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that instructions have been received and has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mrs. Swati Agrawal Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the First Information Report was lodged on 7.4.2023 in respect of an incident dated 6.4.2023. As per FIR, it is alleged that applicant has threatened the informant for payment of extortion of Rs.2 crore and has threatened for life. He submits that the FIR has been lodged under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 and 386 IPC and subsequently investigation has been held and chargesheet has been submitted under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 and 386 IPC. He submits that in the present case, there is no delivery of amount and even if the allegation as per FIR is taken to be correct, no case beyond section 385 IPC is made out. He further submits that for punishment under Section 386 IPC, it has to be shown by prosecution that there was delivery to any person any property or valuable security or anything signed or sealed, which may be converted into a valuable security. He further submits that there is a long drawn previous enmity between the parties as both the parties have contested the election for Pradhani and both belong to same village. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has previous history of 10 cases. However his submission is based on the fact that even if the allegation of FIR is taken to be true then only under Section 385 IPC would be made out which is bailable offence.

7. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submits that a demand of Rs.2 crore for extortion has been made from Village Pradhan, who is a elected representative. He submits that applicant has been charge sheeted under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 and 386 IPC and has previous criminal history.

8. Learned AGA for the State has pointed out the criminal antecedents of the applicant. No material or circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of witness in previous criminal cases. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:-

22. Once the legislature itself has provided the offence to be bailable in nature then the person cannot be put in jail as the right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India would be affected. The prosecution is required to show that offence under Section 386 IPC is made out in the present case. The prosecution has failed to demonstrate from the record as to how offence under Section 386 IPC is made out, once there is no delivery of amount.

23. Considering the fact that the allegation against the applicant does not come within the four corners of Section 386 IPC and would at best, triable by Section 385 IPC, which is bailable offence. The right of applicant for bail cannot be curtail in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

27. The manner in which the offence under Section 386 IPC has been slapped against applicant even though the ingredients of the same are not available in the FIR or otherwise, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for informant has failed to show as to how offence under Section 386 IPC is made out against applicant, demonstrate the overreaching of the police authorities by slapping cases of non-bailable in nature under Section 386 IPC when only Section 385 IPC can at the best be found against applicant, which is bailable offence.