High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:130272 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7331 of 2024 Applicant :- Aneesuddin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Gopal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Aneesuddin seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.511 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 34 IPC, Police Station Cantt., District Bareilly. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He has been falsely implicated in this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that the statement of the informant has been recorded so many times by the investigating officer and in such statements, he has contradicted his earlier statement and in subsequent statement given to the investigating officer, he has narrated a new story and made false allegations against the present applicant and the F.I.R. version was totally changed and it was stated that the aforesaid truck was taken by the informant from the present applicant to drive it and it was also agreed upon that loan installments shall be paid by the present applicant. It is submitted that there is no written agreement in this regard between the informant and the applicant. Charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant. The applicant was granted anticipatory by this Court on 21.4.2023 vide Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 4143 of 2023 till submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC and he has not misused the said liberty. Criminal history of the applicant has been sufficiently explained. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. 4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. 5. In the F.I.R., it is alleged that the driver Taufeeq Khan of Truck No.UP25 DT - 1354 was driving the aforesaid truck, which was stolen on the way. The informant was the registered owner of that truck. F.I.R. under Section 379 IPC was lodged against unknown accused. However, during the course of investigation, the offence was converted into Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 34 IPC. After completion of investigation charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. The applicant was granted anticipatory by this Court on 21.4.2023 vide Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 4143 of 2023 till submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC and no instance of misuse of the said liberty has been brought to the notice of the court. 6. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial. It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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, likelihood 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. 7. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022)13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that: "11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87CrPC that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution. 12. Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170CrPC, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this." 8. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the end of trial. 9. The application is allowed accordingly. 10. In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his 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 before the Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the trial. (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 him/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. 11. In case of default of any of the conditions, the same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 12.8.2024 safi