High Court · 2023

Legal Reasoning

1. Heard Sri Anurag Vajpeyi, 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- Deepak seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.370 of 2020, under sections- 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 506, 427 I.P.C., Police Station- Expressway, District- Gautam Budh Nagar.

3. As per the allegations in the F.I.R., the accused persons including the present applicant had gone to a relatives farm for taking bricks for their construction purpose where the accused persons were already present; it is mentioned in the F.I.R. that a bit earlier before the incident, there has been an altercation/brawl between them on one side and Monu and Nitin, the co- accused person on the other side. In the background of this previous incident, Monu who was carrying fire arm, Deepak who was carrying a sharp-edged weapon, Sonu and Ravindra carrying a iron rod and Santi carrying laathi- danda attacked and physically assaulted them. Meanwhile, they informed their father Satveer and also the police on Dial 112; they came there armed with weapons and asked them to return their tractor; they fired and assaulted Satveer, Satish, Nitin and Prince causing them number of injuries.

4. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the present F.I.R. has been lodged after a delay of about 9 days with concocted and colored version of the incident; the real facts are different; Monu, son of Santi the co-accused person had earlier lodged an F.I.R. for the same incident against five persons including the persons who have been stated to be injured in the present incident, alleging that they came armed with rifle, revolver, sword and double barrel gun and caused them a number of injuries. It is argued on behalf of the applicant that in the F.I.R. (Case Crime No.358 of 2020) lodged promptly i.e. just three hours after the alleged incident, the present applicant Deepak has been named as a person who came to save them. My attention has been drawn to that portion of (cross) F.I.R., wherein it is alleged that it was Deepak, son of Bheem Singh and one more, who came to the spot on hearing raised voices, seeing them Satveer, Neeraj, Satish, Nitin and Prince fled away; it is further argued that certain persons of both the sides got injured and present applicant is unscathed. It is further argued that had he been involved in the incident, he too would have, in all probability sustained at least some injuries; he has been named as an afterthought in the instant F.I.R. lodged with 9 days delay because he assisted the injured persons; the applicant was earlier granted anticipatory bail by an order dated 20.01.2021 till submission of charge-sheet passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application (u/s 438 Cr.P.C.) No.1050 of 2021. It is said that without conducting a fair investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted; the applicant has been granted interim protection by a detailed order of this Court dated 13.05.2022; the applicant is having no criminal history and has never misused the liberty granted by the two earlier orders as aforesaid; he has been co-operating with the investigation and shall further co-operate in the trial.

5. The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by the learned A.G.A. on the premise that in this case four persons were charge-sheeted and they sustained a number of injuries and that a cross case was lodged by the side of the applicant as a number of persons have injured from both the sides, therefore it cannot be said that the incident did not took place. However, this fact is conceded that present applicant is the only one who did not sustain any injury and that he was named only as witness in the cross F.I.R. lodged by the other side.

6. In case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

7. I considered the submissions of both the sides in the light of material on record and the facts pointed out elaborating the reasons for the false implication and the broad probabilities thereof. In my view, a case for anticipatory bail is made out and interim protection is confirmed.

8. Let the applicant- Deepak involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the same amount to the satisfaction of court concerned, subject to the conditions as below:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted.

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

10. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way influence the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on material before him at any stage. Order Date :- 27.3.2023/Saif SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad