High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:136166 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6998 of 2024 Applicant :- Girdesh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Pandey,Shaurya Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today annexing the criminal history of the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 3. At the very outset, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for applicant that the present anticipatory bail application is not being pressed in respect of appellant no.2 Suresh, as he has already been arrested during investigation. 4. Now present application is being pressed only on behalf of the applicant no.1 - Girdesh seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 665 of 2023, under Sections 379, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 186, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C., Section 3/58/72 Uttar Pradesh Sub Minerals (Concession) Manual - 2021, Section 4/21 Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 2/3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station- Robertsganj, District - Sonbhadra. 5. The transit authorization letter which was issued in favour of the original licensee Sri Satyendra Dhar Dubey, who was authorized for the mining purposes, was found fabricated and the photo was also edited and the name of the co-accused Satyendra Dhar Dubey was mentioned over the paper and one vehicle bearing no.UP65- GT-4756 loaded with crushed stones (gitti) was found to be engaged in transportation on the basis of the aforesaid forged papers. The investigation after lodging of the F.I.R. started and continued wherein the complicity of the vehicle of the applicant no.1 came to surface and he was also implicated in this matter as a co-accused. 6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on in the matter. It is further submitted that that applicant Girdesh or his vehicle bearing no.UP65-GT-4756 is not named in the F.I.R. of this case and only on the basis of alleged confessional statement made by the driver of the vehicle, who was initially applicant no.2 in the present application, the name of present applicant has been surfaced. It is further submitted that the applicant no.1 Girdesh happens to be the registered owner of the vehicle in question. It is also submitted that the applicant no.1 is in no way concerned with the license to carry gitti on the vehicles. He is only a transporter. It is also submitted that the criminal history of the applicant has been sufficiently explained. Out of the two cases shown against the applicant as criminal history, in one case the police report reflects that he is not wanted in that case and in the other case police submitted the final report. It is further submitted that co-accused Smt. Shiv Kumari Devi has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 18.12.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. - 13722 of 2023. It is also submitted that the applicant has been cooperative with the I.O. of this case. In case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but however could not dispute this factual aspect that the co- accused of this case has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. 8. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion. 9. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused. 10. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court. 11. The anticipatory bail application is allowed accordingly. 12. In the event of arrest of the applicant - Girdesh, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till filing of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office. (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 S.S.P./S.P. Concerned. 13. In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 22.8.2024 / ss