High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:123270 Court No. - 75 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7468 of 2024 Applicant :- Subhash Alias Subhash Chnadra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Agrawal,Uttam Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA for the State. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Criminal Case No.1919 of 2023 (State vs. Jarman and others), arising out of Case Crime No.187 of 2018, under Sections 328, 394, 307, 420, 467, 468, 120-B IPC, P.S. Chaubeypur, District- Kanpur Nagar, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive and has apprehension of arrest. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. The applicant is not named in the FIR. The named accused persons have been exonerated by the police. Subsequently, after six months, the name of applicant has come up in the statements of arrested five accused-persons namely, Akhilesh Singh, Mohan Shyam Pandey, Gore Lal Nai, Monu Chauhan and Suneel Kumar Dohre, which is not admissible under the Indian Evidence Act. He further submits that co-accused Mukesh Kumar Pandey, has already been granted anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.05.2024, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial. Learned AGA for the State, on the other hand, submits that similarly situated Mohan Shyam Pandey and Monu Chauhan have been arrested and granted regular bail by this Court. He further submits that from the material as collected by the Investigating Officer, credible, clinching as well as documentary evidences showing the complicity of commission of the crime has been found, therefore, the charge sheet has been submitted in this case. He has further submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, he is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The resources of the Court which includes precious judicial time are scarce and already badly stretched. Valuable Court time, which is required to be engaged in adjudication of serious judicial action, is expended on frivolous and vexatious litigation which is misconceived and is an abuse of the process of law. A judicial system has barely sufficient resources to afford justice without unreasonable delay to those having genuine grievances. Therefore, increasingly, the Courts have held that such totally unjustified use of judicial time has to be curbed and the party so wasting precious judicial resources, must be required to compensate not only the adversary but also the judicial system. In order to make disposal of this application, it is relevant to mention Section 438 Cr.P.C., which is reproduced herein below:- "438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest. (1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non- bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail. (2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub- section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including- (i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) a condition that the person 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; (iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub- section (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section. (3) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail, be shall be released on bail; and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should issue in the first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court under sub- section (1)." Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the custodial interrogation and will lead to nondisclosure of useful information and material facts and information. In the case of P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (2019) 9 SCC 24, the Apex Court held as under:- "74. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the investigation intended to secure several purposes. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and to collect more information which may lead to recovery of relevant information. In State Rep. By The CBI v. Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187, the Supreme Court held as under:- "6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders." 81. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. ........." In another judgment of Apex Court in case of Sadhna Chaudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 2022 (237) AIC 205 (SC), the Apex Court has held that while dealing with an application for anticipatory bail, the High Court must consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the exact role of the accused and apprehension of the arrest etc. From perusal of the records, it transpires that offence is serious in nature. There is nothing on record to show apprehension of arrest of the applicant nor has any such averment been made in the affidavit regarding the same. In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, taking into consideration the role assigned to the applicant as per prosecution case, gravity and nature of accusation as well as reasons mentioned above, this court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power under section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure is made out in favour of applicant. Accordingly this application under section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Order Date :- 31.7.2024 Rahul.