In Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:153953 Court No. - 68 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9109 of 2024 Applicant :- Anuj Jawla @ Anuj Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dheeraj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. This is the second anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. The first application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 23.9.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 20004 of 2021.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel for applicant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for State and also perused the material available on record. 3. The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for protection in regard to FIR/Case Crime No. 259 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 188, 326, 332, 353, 307, 341, 342, 427, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C. and 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 and 6 of the United Provincial Special Power Act, P.S.- Civil Line, District- Meerut. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: 4. The applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has the apprehension of his arrest. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. 5. The co-accused person Rajdeep has been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 26.2.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 4314 of 2022. 6. The applicant has not misused the interim protection granted to him earlier in the first anticipatory bail. 7. The applicant has a criminal history of one case u/s 506 IPC, which is bailable. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTY/STATE: 8. The prayer for anticipatory bail has been opposed on the ground that the applicant was granted interim protection in the year 2021 and he enjoyed the said protection for about one year and his anticipatory bail application was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 23.9.2022 and after the said order of dismissal of first anticipatory bail application, he had applied for second anticipatory bail after a lapse of about two years. 9. The anticipatory bail application of the co-accused person Rajdeep was the first application and was decided on merits. The case of the applicant is at a different footing to the co-accused person. 10. The applicant is not co-operating in trial, as such, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail. CONCLUSION: 11. 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. 12. A three Judge bench of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.872-873 of 2020 'Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla Vs. Smt. Anita Agarwal & others' held that: "19. It is apposite to mention here the distinction between the considerations which guide the grant of anticipatory bail and regular bail. In Pokar Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (1985) 2 SCC 597, while setting aside an order granting anticipatory bail, this Court observed: 5. 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. This is necessary to be stated because the learned Judge in the High Court unfortunately fell into an error in mixing up all the considerations, as if all the three become relevant in the present situation. 6. The decision of the Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 clearly lays down that "the distinction between an ordinary order of bail and an order of anticipatory bail is that whereas the former is granted after arrest and therefore means release from the custody of the police, the latter is granted in anticipation of arrest and is therefore effective at the very moment of arrest". Unlike a post-arrest order of bail, it is a pre-arrest legal process which directs that if the person in whose favour it is issued is thereafter arrested on the accusation in respect of which the direction is issued, he shall be released on bail. A direction under Section 438 is intended to confer conditional immunity from the touch as envisaged by Section 46(1) or confinement. In para 31, Chandrachud, C.J. clearly demarcated the distinction between the relevant considerations while examining an application for anticipatory bail and an application for bail after arrest in the course of investigation. Says the learned Chief Justice that 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". A caution was voiced that "in the evaluation of the consideration whether the applicant is likely to abscond, there can be no presumption that the wealthy and the mighty will submit themselves to trial and that the humble and the poor will run away from the course of justice, any more than there can be a presumption that the former are not likely to commit a crime and the latter are more likely to commit it"." 13. Considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also the facts of the case, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant as the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant pertains to regular bail application and cannot be agitated u/s 438 Cr.P.C. at this stage.
Decision
14. In view of the above, the present anticipatory bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 21.9.2024 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal)