Sandeep Bhartiya @ Lalla Saroj v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

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

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Sandeep Bhartiya @ Lalla Saroj seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0043 of 2021, under Section 392 IPC, Police Station Soraon, District Prayagraj.

In the F.I.R., it is alleged that on 5.1.2021 at about 7:00 p.m., two unknown persons snatched the mobile phone of the informant when he was going in a auto for some official work. F.I.R. was lodged as case crime no.43 of 2021 u/s 392 IPC, however, during the course of investigation, in a police encounter, five accused persons were arrested and on the basis of statement of co-accused Ranjit Kumar, Satyendra Kumar and Arvind Saroj, name of the present accused applicant came to light.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He has been falsely implicated in this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that the applicant is not named in the present F.I.R. Nothing has been recovered from his possession. His name surfaced in the statement of co-accused persons, who were implicated in case crime no.44 of 2021 under Sections 41 Cr.P.C. and 411, 413 IPC. It is further submitted that in case crime no.44 of 2021, anticipatory bail has already been granted to the applicant by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. - 8626 of 2021 vide order dated 26.5.2021. Investigation is going on in the matter and the applicant is cooperating with the Investigating Officer of the case. In case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

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, likelihood 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.

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.

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 the filing of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the filing of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court 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.

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 :- 23.5.2023 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad