In Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:126162 Court No. - 68 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7612 of 2024 Applicant :- Umesh Kumar Yadav And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Yadava,R.B.Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri R.B. Pal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicants- Umesh Kumar Yadav, Ramesh Kumar Yadav and Parasnath Yadav for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.123 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Pannuganj, District- Sonbhadra, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY: 3. The named accused person Mamta Kumari is stated to have forged her documents while her real name was Poonam w/o Umesh Kumar Yadav and taken job as Assistant Teacher in the Basic Education Department of UP. RIVAL CONTENTIONS: (Arguments qua applicant no.1- Umesh Kumar Yadav) 4. The applicant no.1 is the husband of co-accused person Mamta Kumari @ Poonam and has nothing to do with the said offence. The applicant is not named in the FIR and he has been falsely implicated in this case due to her relationship with the named accused person Mamta Kumari. The investigation is still going on. 5. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant no.1 to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant no.1 have also been touched upon at length. 6. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that applicant no.1 has criminal history of two cases assigned to him and he has not annexed the order regarding Case Crime No.182 of 2022, registered under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. at Police Station- Rampur Karkhana, District- Deoria coupled with the fact that it was the applicant no.1 and applicant no.3 Parasnath Yadav who had made statement before the Sub-Inspector who had inquired about the genuineness of the candidates and had given false information to the Investigating Officer. 7. 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 Supreme 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. 8. A three Judge bench of the Supreme Court in Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla vs. Smt. Anita Agarwal & others, AIR 2021 SC 277, broadly demarcated the distinction between the considerations which guide the grant of anticipatory bail and regular bail. It stated that in Pokar Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (1985) 2 SCC 597, while setting aside an order granting anticipatory bail, this Court observed that the relevant considerations governing the court's decision in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 are materially different from those when an application for bail by a person who is arrested in the course of investigation as also by a person who is convicted and his appeal is pending before the higher court and bail is sought during the pendency of the appeal. Three situations in which the question of granting or refusing to grant bail would arise, materially and substantially differ from each other and the relevant considerations on which the courts would exercise its discretion, one way or the other, are substantially different from each other. It further stated that the judgement of the Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 in para 31, Chandrachud, C.J. clearly drew the distinction between the relevant considerations while examining an application for anticipatory bail and an application for bail after arrest during investigation. In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. It was observed that "it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond". Some of the relevant considerations which govern the discretion, noticed therein are "the nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and 'the larger interests of the public or the State', are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail". 9. After taking into consideration the rival contentions and the fact that criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant no.1 stands unexplained coupled with the fact that he has given false statement regarding genuineness and veracity of candidate Mamta Kumari @ Poonam, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant no.1. 10. The present anticipatory bail application qua applicant no.1- Umesh Kumar Yadav is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected. (Arguments qua the applicant no.2- Ramesh Kumar Yadav) 11. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that as far as the applicant no.2 is concerned, he has nothing to do with the said offence. He has simply been made accused on the ground that he is close friend of co-accused persons Ajeet Kumar Yadav and Parasnath Yadav. His case is at a different footing to co-accused persons, as such he is entitled for anticipatory bail. There is no criminal antecedent of applicant no.2. The investigation is still going on. 12. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant no.2 to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant no.2 have also been touched upon at length. He has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant no.2 undertakes that he has co- operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail. 13. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions advanced on behalf of applicant no.2. 14. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant no.2, the applicant no.2 is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant no.2 shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. 15. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application qua applicant no.2 is allowed. Let the accused-applicant no.2- Ramesh Kumar Yadav be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i). that the applicant no.2 shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii). that the applicant no.2 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 or tamper with the evidence; (iii). that the applicant no.2 shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant no.2 shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; (v). that the applicant no.2 shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi). that the applicant no.2 shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail. (Arguments qua the applicant no.3- Parasnath Yadav) 16. It is argued that applicant no.3 has nothing to do with the said offence. He is a known person of co-accused person Umesh Kumar Yadav, as such he has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is not named in the FIR. The investigation is still going on. He has no criminal history to his credit. 17. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant no.3 to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant no.3 have also been touched upon at length. 18. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that it was the applicant no.3 and co-accused person Umesh Kumar Yadav who had given false statement to the Inquiry Officer, as such he is not entitled for anticipatory bail. 19. 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 Supreme 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. 20. A three Judge bench of the Supreme Court in Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla vs. Smt. Anita Agarwal & others, AIR 2021 SC 277, broadly demarcated the distinction between the considerations which guide the grant of anticipatory bail and regular bail. It stated that in Pokar Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (1985) 2 SCC 597, while setting aside an order granting anticipatory bail, this Court observed that the relevant considerations governing the court's decision in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 are materially different from those when an application for bail by a person who is arrested in the course of investigation as also by a person who is convicted and his appeal is pending before the higher court and bail is sought during the pendency of the appeal. Three situations in which the question of granting or refusing to grant bail would arise, materially and substantially differ from each other and the relevant considerations on which the courts would exercise its discretion, one way or the other, are substantially different from each other. It further stated that the judgement of the Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 in para 31, Chandrachud, C.J. clearly drew the distinction between the relevant considerations while examining an application for anticipatory bail and an application for bail after arrest during investigation. In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. It was observed that "it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond". Some of the relevant considerations which govern the discretion, noticed therein are "the nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and 'the larger interests of the public or the State', are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail". 21. After taking into consideration the rival contentions and the fact that applicant no.3 was hand in glove with co-accused person Umesh Kumar Yadav in wrongly identifying the main accused person Mamta Kumari @ Poonam, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant no.3. 22. The present anticipatory bail application qua applicant no.3- Parasnath Yadav is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected. 23. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of present anticipatory bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 5.8.2024 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal)