High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Desh Ratan Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 69 of 2021, under Section 326 I.P.C., Police Station-Baraut, District- Baghpat.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive; FIR was registered on 24.01.2021 against five named and one unknown person for assaulting informant and other injured persons by tamancha, knife and sharp edged weapons. Instant anticipatory bail application has been filed that applicants are in apprehension of arrest in the present case U/s 326 I.P.C. which has been subsequently added in the course of further investigation. By supplementary affidavit, after submission of charge sheet cognizance has been taken by learned Magistrate. Applicants are not named in the FIR. Applicants' name was not disclosed in the statement of first informant recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. and name of the applicants were also not disclosed in the statement of other witnesses. Applicants name surfaced in further statement of first informant. I.O. has submitted charge sheet against the applicants U/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C., thereafter, court concerned took cognizance and issued summons against the applicants. Applicant No.1 after receiving summon moved anticipatory bail application before this Hon'ble Court bearing No.7268 of 2022 and co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.09.2022, granted anticipatory bail to applicant No.1 till conclusion of trial, the order passed is quoted herein below :- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail as the accused-applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Case Crime No.69 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506, 452, 354 IPC, Police Station- Baraut, District -Baghpat. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that F.I.R. of the present case has been lodged on 24.1.2021 against five named co-accused persons. The applicant is not named in the F.I.R. The name of the applicant has not been disclosed in the statement of the first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 24.1.2021. The name of the applicant has also not been disclosed in the statement of injured witnesses Jagmohan and Sagar Sharma. The name of the applicant has also been disclosed in the statement of the Anita Sharma and Monika Sharma recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.. He further submitted that only in the further statement of the first informant recorded on 13.4.2021, the name of the applicant has been disclosed. Charge sheet against the applicant has been filed under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. Further submission is that the applicant fully cooperated with the investigation, therefore no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant, hence, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial and he is ready to cooperate with the trial. If the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will never misuse the same. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director, AIR 2021 Supreme Court 4154. Learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail to the applicant. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aman Preet Singh (Supra), the Court has observed as under: "10. Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170 Cr.P.C., the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail.

11. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this." In Aman Preet Singh (supra), the Court has clearly held that if a person, who is an accused in a non-bailable/cognizable offence, was not taken into custody during the period of investigation, in such a case, it is appropriate that he may be released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant-Ankit Kumar be released on bail by the trial Court till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and, two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned with the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that the applicant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law; (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. In case of absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against the applicant under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation; (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his/her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against the applicant in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code; and (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law."

4. The trial court vide order dated 04.07.2024 issued summon against the applicant and co-accused U/s 326 I.P.C. Then the present anticipatory bail application has been filed. He further submitted that since applicants have already enlarged on anticipatory bail in allied sections in which charge sheet was submitted and they have not misused the anticipatory bail then he should be granted anticipatory bail in present Section U/s 326 I.P.C. It is submitted that the applicants are apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that from perusal of ordersheet, which has been filed with supplementary affidavit, clearly demonstrate that applicant after getting anticipatory bail by order dated 21.09.2022, thereafter, various dates were fixed by trial court in trial proceedings as 03.03.2023, 03.05.2023, 09.08.2023, 05.10.2023, which disclosed that applicant was not present on the date fixed which shows that applicant is misusing the anticipatory bail and not co-operating in the trial proceedings, as such, applicants should not be granted anticipatory bail in added Section 326 I.P.C. as they will not co-operate in trial proceedings. The applicants are not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants may be rejected.

6. The object of anticipatory bail is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains.

7. It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this Court cannot be put in a straitjacket formula but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from justice, apprehension of tempering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation or society etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society.

8. Considering the argument raised by applicants' counsel and learned AGA, it is evident from the record that applicant No.1 misused the anticipatory bail granted to him as he intentionally did not appear before trial court to participate in trial proceedings on various dates fixed, thereafter, trial court issued NBW against the applicant for non appearance, hence, prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. I find no good ground for anticipatory bail to the applicants in the aforesaid case. No interference is warranted.

9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of applicants, Ankit and Anuj, is hereby rejected. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Nitin Verma NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Desh Ratan Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 69 of 2021, under Section 326 I.P.C., Police Station-Baraut, District- Baghpat.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive; FIR was registered on 24.01.2021 against five named and one unknown person for assaulting informant and other injured persons by tamancha, knife and sharp edged weapons. Instant anticipatory bail application has been filed that applicants are in apprehension of arrest in the present case U/s 326 I.P.C. which has been subsequently added in the course of further investigation. By supplementary affidavit, after submission of charge sheet cognizance has been taken by learned Magistrate. Applicants are not named in the FIR. Applicants' name was not disclosed in the statement of first informant recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. and name of the applicants were also not disclosed in the statement of other witnesses. Applicants name surfaced in further statement of first informant. I.O. has submitted charge sheet against the applicants U/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C., thereafter, court concerned took cognizance and issued summons against the applicants. Applicant No.1 after receiving summon moved anticipatory bail application before this Hon'ble Court bearing No.7268 of 2022 and co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.09.2022, granted anticipatory bail to applicant No.1 till conclusion of trial, the order passed is quoted herein below :- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail as the accused-applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Case Crime No.69 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506, 452, 354 IPC, Police Station- Baraut, District -Baghpat. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that F.I.R. of the present case has been lodged on 24.1.2021 against five named co-accused persons. The applicant is not named in the F.I.R. The name of the applicant has not been disclosed in the statement of the first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 24.1.2021. The name of the applicant has also not been disclosed in the statement of injured witnesses Jagmohan and Sagar Sharma. The name of the applicant has also been disclosed in the statement of the Anita Sharma and Monika Sharma recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.. He further submitted that only in the further statement of the first informant recorded on 13.4.2021, the name of the applicant has been disclosed. Charge sheet against the applicant has been filed under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. Further submission is that the applicant fully cooperated with the investigation, therefore no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant, hence, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial and he is ready to cooperate with the trial. If the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will never misuse the same. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director, AIR 2021 Supreme Court 4154. Learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail to the applicant. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aman Preet Singh (Supra), the Court has observed as under: "10. Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170 Cr.P.C., the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail.

11. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this." In Aman Preet Singh (supra), the Court has clearly held that if a person, who is an accused in a non-bailable/cognizable offence, was not taken into custody during the period of investigation, in such a case, it is appropriate that he may be released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant-Ankit Kumar be released on bail by the trial Court till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and, two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned with the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that the applicant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law; (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. In case of absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against the applicant under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation; (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his/her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against the applicant in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code; and (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law."

4. The trial court vide order dated 04.07.2024 issued summon against the applicant and co-accused U/s 326 I.P.C. Then the present anticipatory bail application has been filed. He further submitted that since applicants have already enlarged on anticipatory bail in allied sections in which charge sheet was submitted and they have not misused the anticipatory bail then he should be granted anticipatory bail in present Section U/s 326 I.P.C. It is submitted that the applicants are apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that from perusal of ordersheet, which has been filed with supplementary affidavit, clearly demonstrate that applicant after getting anticipatory bail by order dated 21.09.2022, thereafter, various dates were fixed by trial court in trial proceedings as 03.03.2023, 03.05.2023, 09.08.2023, 05.10.2023, which disclosed that applicant was not present on the date fixed which shows that applicant is misusing the anticipatory bail and not co-operating in the trial proceedings, as such, applicants should not be granted anticipatory bail in added Section 326 I.P.C. as they will not co-operate in trial proceedings. The applicants are not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants may be rejected.

6. The object of anticipatory bail is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains.

7. It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this Court cannot be put in a straitjacket formula but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from justice, apprehension of tempering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation or society etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society.

8. Considering the argument raised by applicants' counsel and learned AGA, it is evident from the record that applicant No.1 misused the anticipatory bail granted to him as he intentionally did not appear before trial court to participate in trial proceedings on various dates fixed, thereafter, trial court issued NBW against the applicant for non appearance, hence, prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. I find no good ground for anticipatory bail to the applicants in the aforesaid case. No interference is warranted.

9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of applicants, Ankit and Anuj, is hereby rejected. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Nitin Verma NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad