High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:196844 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11101 of 2024 Applicant :- Brajpal Giri And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Sri Rajesh Pandey, learned counsel for applicants and Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicants in Case Crime No.662 of 2024, under Sections 406, 420, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Deoria, District Deoria with the prayer to enlarge them on bail. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicants along with Pawan Giri and Kaushal Giri are stated to have abused the informant and his mother and are subsequently stated to have assaulted her causing her grievous injuries by lathi and danda on 22.09.2022 at about 08:00 am. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons, as such, the applicants are entitled for bail. Even, the G.D. No.26 of the institution of the FIR dated 22.09.2022 indicates that informant had not sustained any injuries whatsoever as it has been mentioned in the said G.D. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants has further stated that the injuries are simple in nature. On the same day both the parties including the applicants were challaned by the police under Section 151/107/116 Cr.P.C. as such, the instant FIR is just the misuse of process of court. 7. The applicants were not arrested during investigation and the final report charge sheet has already been submitted he has been summoned only, as such he is entitled for anticipatory bail in light of judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 as the offence is punishable for a sentence under seven years. 8. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicants and they are ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the said G.D. No.26/22.09.2022 categorically indicates that the mother of the informant Jagwati has been sent for medical examination along with lady Constable 876 Reena and there were injuries on the face and her head and blood was coming out from it. The injury report categorically indicates that there were four injuries sustained by the injured person. The supplementary report categorically indicates that the fracture of occipital bone and nasal bone was observed as such, the case falls within the category of grievous offence, the applicants are not entitled for bail. 10. 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. 11. 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". 12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the rival submissions and the argument tendered by the learned AGA, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants. 13. The anticipatory bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 16.12.2024 Priya (Justice Krishan Pahal)