Chhotu v. State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of
Case Details
Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2093 of 2022 Applicant :- Amresh Yadav @ Ajay Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State. Perused the record. This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant Amresh Yadav @ Ajay Yadav in connection with Case Crime No. 28 of 2021, under sections 392, 342, 411 120B IPC, Police Station Bilhaur District Kanpur Nagar. Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 29.1.2021, a belated F.I.R. dated 30.1.2021 was lodged by first informant Shri Shyam Ji and was registered as Case Crime No. 28 of 2021, under sections 392, 342, 411 120B IPC, Police Station Bilhaur District Kanpur Nagar. In the aforesaid F.I.R. one unknown person has been nominated as solitary accused. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant contends that co-accused Sahil Katiyar who is similarly situate with present applicant has been extended the benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 23.7.2021, passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 10997 of 2021. For ready reference, same is reproduced herein under: "(1) Heard Sri D.K.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material brought on record. (2) The instant application is being moved by the applicant Sahil Katiyar invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C., apprehending his arrest in connection with Case Crime No.28 of 2021, under Sections 394 and 342 IPC, P.S. Bilhaur, District Kanpur Dehat during the pendency of the trial. (3) The instant anticipatory bail application is being filed by the applicant aggrieved by the order dated 05.04.2021 by which learned trial court has rejected his anticipatory bail application. Hence, the present anticipatory bail application. (4) Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Vs. State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned AGA as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P.Amendment) is not required. (5) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicants have got no criminal antecedents and he has not undergone any imprisonment after conviction by any court of law in relation to any cognizable offence previously. An assurance was also advanced by learned counsel for the applicants on behalf of the applicant that he would render all requisite co-operation and assistance in the process of law and with the investigation agency and shall not create any hindrance to reach to its logical conclusion and shall not flee away from the course of justice. (6) Learned counsel for the applicant has strenuously argued that the applicant have been made target just to besmirch his reputation and belittle him in the public estimate by the informant. Number of arguments were advanced by learned counsel for the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the accusation made in the FIR against the applicant by the informant. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgements in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273; Jogender Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (1994) 4 SCC 260 and Sanaul Haque Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2008) Crl.L.J. 1998, to buttress his contention. (7) In the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court has opined that the pith and core is that the police officer before arrest must put questions to himself, Why arrest?, Is it really required?, What purpose it will serve?, What object it will achieve? If it is only after these questions are addressed and one or other conditions, as enumerated above, are satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. Before the arrest the police office should have a reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police officer has to satisfy further that the arrest is necessary for one or more purposes envisaged in sub-clauses (a) to (e) to Clause-I of Section (8) Contention raised by the applicant during investigation one Amit Katiyar has taken the name of the present applicant, though there is no recovery or active involvement on the part of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has got an unblemished past and apprehending his arrest (9) Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application by mentioning that though the applicant has got no criminal antecedent but there is nothing on record to satisfy that the police personnel are after the applicant to arrest them. The alleged apprehension on behalf of applicant is imaginary and unfounded one. Learned AGA has also submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made in the FIR, the applicant is not entitled for in the present case. Cr.P.C. 438 this Court. relaxation any from (10) After considering the record of the case as available before the Court, in the light of rival submissions made at the Bar and keeping in view the nature and gravity of the accusation, antecedents of the applicant, his undertaking to make himself available to the authorities whenever required, the Court feels satisfied that it would be expedient to grant an order of anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant. Thus, the instant Anticipatory Bail Application stands ALLOWED. (11) Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may be adversely affect the investigation and subsequent stage of the case, the Court directs that in the event of arrest of the applicant in aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the line amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer till submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. with the condition (I) The applicant shall make themselves available for the interrogation by the police as and when required. The Investigation Officer of the case would give 48 hours prior notice or telephonically inform the concerned accused- applicant to remain available to him for the purpose of interrogation and the accused-applicants are obliged to abide by (II) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threats or comments to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the correct facts to the court or to the police officer. directions. such that :- (III) The Investigating Officer of the case would make all necessary endeavour to gear up the investigation in utmost transparent and professional way and would try to conclude the same within a maximum period of 90 days. During this period the accused-applicant would not leave the State of Uttar Pradesh without informing the Investigating Officer of the case and sharing his contact (IV) In the event the applicant is having their passports, they will have to surrender the same before the concerned SP/SSP of the District till the submission of report under Section 173(2) (12) In the event, the applicant breach or attempt to breath any of the aforesaid conditions or wilfully violate above conditions or abstains himself from the investigation, it would be open for the Investigating Officer or the concerned authority to apply before the court of Sessions for cancellation of bail and the Court of Sessions has every liberty and freedom to revoke the anticipatory bail after recording the reasons for the same. " number. Cr.P.C. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicant contends that case of present applicant is similar and identical to co-accused Sahil Katiyar. There is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which case of present applicant can be distinguished from aforesaid co-accused. He, therefore, contends that for the facts and reasons mentioned in the order dated 23.7.2021, applicant is also liable to be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail. It is next contended that applicant is not named in F.I.R.. It is then submitted that F.I.R. giving rise to this application was lodged on 30.1.2021. However, inspite of the fact that a period of more than one year and one month has rolled by from the date of lodging of F.I.R., no Police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has been submitted against applicant. Investigation is still going on. Applicant has been co- operating with the investigation inasmuch as no co-erchive process has been issued against applicant. He therefore submits that custodial arrest of applicant is not absolutely necessary for investigating aforementioned case crime number. Charge sheet dated 16.7.2021 has been submitted but against other co- accused. It is lastly submitted that applicant is a man of clean antecedents, inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. However, irrespective of above, there is eminent threat of applicant being arrested by Police. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicant contends that liberty of applicant be protected by extending the benefit of anticipatory bail in his favour. Per contra,the learned A.G.A. has opposed this application for anticipatory bail. Having heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, matter requires consideration. In view of above, in the event of arrest, applicant Amresh Yadav @ Ajay Yadav shall be released on ad-interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/ concerned Court with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (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. (iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. (v) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt. Advocate is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants. The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation, if pending, of the present case in accordance with law, expeditiously, independently without being prejudiced by any observations made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant. The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, if investigation is in progress, who shall ensure the compliance of present order. Order Date :- 22.3.2022 Arshad Digitally signed by ARSHAD MAHMOOD Date: 2022.03.22 17:41:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad