High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:126140 Court No. - 68 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7653 of 2024
Legal Reasoning
Applicant :- Smt. Reena Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Utkarsh Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. Heard Sri Sudhir Dixit, Advocate holding brief of Sri Utkarsh Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manoj Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 2. The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.54 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 506, 308 IPC, Police Station Ganganagar, District Meerut, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY: 3. The applicant alongwith six other named accused persons is stated to have barged into the house of the informant on 03.03.2024 at about 3:00 p.m. and caused grievous injuries to him, his son and daughter by assaulting with Lathi, Danda, Iron Rod and Balkati. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: 4. The applicant is a lady and her role is at a different footing to the other co-accused persons. 5. The co-accused person Suraj has been enlarged on regular bail by this Court vide order dated 29.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.20983 of 2024. 6. Initially the FIR was instituted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 352, 323, 307, 506 I.P.C., but subsequently Section 307 I.P.C. has been deleted and Sections 308 and 326 I.P.C. have been added. Even Section 452 I.P.C. has been deleted as the place of incident is stated to be outside the house of the informant. The applicant and the informant are the immediate neighbours. 7. The independent witnesses, namely, Rahul, Vishal and others, have categorically stated that the applicant and other co-accused persons were only hurling abuses at the other party and had not participated in the assault, as such the applicant being a lady is entitled for bail. 8. The instant case is a counterblast to FIR No.320 of 2023, under Sections 325, 504 and 323 I.P.C., which was instituted by the husband of the applicant against the informant and his family members, as such the instant FIR has been instituted out of vengeance. 9. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to her credit. She is ready to cooperate during trial. The applicant has complied with the provisions of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and was not arrested during investigation. The final report (charge-sheet) has been submitted. There is no apprehension of the applicant tampering with evidence. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT: 10. The anticipatory bail application has been opposed on the ground that there are three injured persons and all the accused persons, including the applicant, have participated in the assault and one of the injured person Ravikant has sustained grievous injuries on his vital organ i.e. undisplaced fracture of left parietal bone, left temporal bone and left zygomatic arch. The injuries were found dangerous to his life, as such the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE BY A.G.A: 11. The anticipatory bail application has been opposed by the factum of no criminal antecedents has not been disputed. CONCLUSION: 12. 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. 13. 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". 14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that there are three injured persons in all and one of the injured person has sustained grievous injuries, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 15. The arguments tendered at bar pertain to regular bail application and cannot be agitated at the stage of 438 Cr.P.C. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected. 16. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of anticipatory bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 6.8.2024 Ravi/- (Justice Krishan Pahal)