In Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Sanjay Kumar seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 665 of 2023, under Sections 379, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., under Sections 4/21 Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, Section 3/57/7 Uttar Pradesh Minerals (Concession) Act, and Section 2/3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station- Robertsganj, District-Sonbhadra.

3. The transit authorization letter which was issued in favour of the original licensee Sri Satyendra Dhar Dubey was fabricated and photo was also edited and the name of the co-accused Smt. Shiv Kumari Devi was mentioned over that paper and trucks loaded with gitti were being transported on the basis of the aforesaid forged paper. FIR was lodged on 16.11.2023 and investigation started, which is going on.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on in the matter. It is further submitted that that applicant has not committed any offence. It is further submitted that his name came into light for the first time in the statement of co-accused Smt. Shiv Kumari Devi,who stated before the police that the present applicant, who is her son-in-law was looking after the affairs on account of her illness. It is further submitted that the said Smt. Shiv Kumari Devi also stated before the police that the total number of 10 permits bearing her signaure were lost due to the negligence of her son-in-law and the loss of said record was reported to the police on 28.10.2023 at G.D.No. 41 in P.S. Araura. It is further submitted that in this way no offence has been committed by the present applicant. The investigation of the case is going on. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but however could not dispute this factual aspect that an application for loss of security paper and license regarding the co-accused Smt. Shiv Kumari Devi was given to the police station. It has also not been disputed that the applicant has no criminal history and has been cooperative with the investigation so far.

6. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

7. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

8. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

9. The application is allowed accordingly.

10. In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (ii) The applicant 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

11. In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Fhd

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Sanjay Kumar seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 665 of 2023, under Sections 379, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., under Sections 4/21 Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, Section 3/57/7 Uttar Pradesh Minerals (Concession) Act, and Section 2/3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station- Robertsganj, District-Sonbhadra.

3. The transit authorization letter which was issued in favour of the original licensee Sri Satyendra Dhar Dubey was fabricated and photo was also edited and the name of the co-accused Smt. Shiv Kumari Devi was mentioned over that paper and trucks loaded with gitti were being transported on the basis of the aforesaid forged paper. FIR was lodged on 16.11.2023 and investigation started, which is going on.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on in the matter. It is further submitted that that applicant has not committed any offence. It is further submitted that his name came into light for the first time in the statement of co-accused Smt. Shiv Kumari Devi,who stated before the police that the present applicant, who is her son-in-law was looking after the affairs on account of her illness. It is further submitted that the said Smt. Shiv Kumari Devi also stated before the police that the total number of 10 permits bearing her signaure were lost due to the negligence of her son-in-law and the loss of said record was reported to the police on 28.10.2023 at G.D.No. 41 in P.S. Araura. It is further submitted that in this way no offence has been committed by the present applicant. The investigation of the case is going on. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but however could not dispute this factual aspect that an application for loss of security paper and license regarding the co-accused Smt. Shiv Kumari Devi was given to the police station. It has also not been disputed that the applicant has no criminal history and has been cooperative with the investigation so far.

6. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

7. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

8. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

9. The application is allowed accordingly.

10. In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (ii) The applicant 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

11. In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Fhd