High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4944 of 2020 Applicant :- Satendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Agrahari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. List revised. No one has appeared on behalf of the applicant to press this application.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA for the State is present. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 41 of 2020, under Sections 420, 504 IPC, P.S.-Todifatehpur, District-Jhansi, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. Earlier, 03.11.2020, the following order was passed, granting interim protection to the applicant:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Satendra, seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.41 of 2020, under Sections -420, 504 I.P.C., Police Station-Todifatehpur, District -Jhansi, during pendency of trial. 3. Put up this case in the week commencing 18.01.2021, in the additional cause list before the appropriate Bench. By the said date, counter affidavit be filed by learned A.G.A. 4. At present, there are no criminal antecedents of the applicant shown as also no real apprehension has been expressed by the State of the applicant fleeing from justice, if the present application is allowed. 5. The bail application has been opposed by learned AGA. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been completely falsely implicated on a made up story. No incident as described in the FIR ever took place. In any case, the FIR allegation only bring out a pure civil dispute wherein the informant claims non-payment of his dues against sale of certain food grains etc. It is further submitted that the informant is a person with a political background who is eyeing the properties of the applicant in the village as there is no one other than the applicant's mother to take care of those properties. 6. Thus, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to interim anticipatory bail in this case, at this stage. 7. In the event of arrest of the applicant - Satendra, involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on interim anticipatory bail during the investigation, till the next date fixed, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned on 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 officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. (iv) In default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant." Perusal of the record goes to show that the matter has not been argued after 18.01.2021 and interim order has been extended till 21.10.2022. Today, also no one has appeared to argue the case even in the revised call. Learned AGA submits that the charge sheet has been submitted in this case on 15.09.2020. The Court finds that the applicant is enjoying the interim protection as granted by the order dated 03.11.2020 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The resources of the Court which includes precious judicial time are scarce and already badly stretched. Valuable Court time, which is required to be engaged in adjudication of serious judicial action, is expended on frivolous and vexatious litigation which is misconceived and is an abuse of the process of law. A judicial system has barely sufficient resources to afford justice without unreasonable delay to those having genuine grievances. Therefore, increasingly, the Courts have held that such totally unjustified use of judicial time has to be curbed and the party so wasting precious judicial resources, must be required to compensate not only the adversary but also the judicial system. In order to make disposal of this application, it is relevant to mention Section 438 Cr.P.C., which is reproduced herein below:- "438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest. (1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non- bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail. (2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub- section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including- (i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) a condition that the person 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; (iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; (iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub- section (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section. (3) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail, be shall be released on bail; and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should issue in the first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court under sub- section (1)." Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the custodial interrogation and will lead to nondisclosure of useful information and material facts and information. In the case of P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (2019) 9 SCC 24, the Apex Court held as under:- "74. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the investigation intended to secure several purposes. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and to collect more information which may lead to recovery of relevant information. In State Rep. By The CBI v. Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187, the Supreme Court held as under:- "6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders." 81. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. ........." From perusal of the records, it transpires that there is nothing on record to show apprehension of arrest of the applicant nor has any such averment been made in the affidavit regarding the same. In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, taking into consideration the role assigned to the applicant as per prosecution case, gravity and nature of accusation as well as reasons mentioned above, this court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power under section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure is made out in favour of applicant. In view of the above, this anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to avail appropriate remedy as provided under the law. Order Date :- 13.1.2023 Jitendra/- Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad