In Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:219911 Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12592 of 2023 Applicant :- Maneesh @ Maneesh Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Mohan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State perused the record. 2. Apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.218 of 2023, under Sections 386, 506, 411 IPC, Police Station Bewar, District Mainpuri, the applicant - Maneesh @ Maneesh Singh has filed this anticipatory bail application seeking anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime number. 3. One unknown person naming himself as Ratnu Dubey made a telephone call to the informant and goonda tax of Rs.3 lakh was demanded and the informant came to know that the present applicant along with his father is also involved in the conspiracy of the alleged offence. F.I.R. was lodged on 2.5.2023 and investigation started, which is still going on. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant 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. Investigation is going on into the matter. It is further submitted that although the applicant is named in the F.I.R., but no specific role has been assigned to the applicant in the commission of the crime. It is further submitted that the mobile number from which the call was made to the informant, does not belong to the present applicant. It is also submitted that only a role of criminal conspiracy has been assigned to the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit. It is further submitted that the applicant is cooperating with the investigation of the case. No custodial interrogation is required in the matter. In case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, but however he could not dispute this factual aspect that no money has been actually paid by the informant to any of the accused persons in this case and a role of criminal conspiracy only has been assigned to the present applicant in the F.I.R. 6. Investigation into the matter is going on and the applicant is cooperating with the investigation. No criminal history of the applicant has been brought to the notice of this Court. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 11. 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. 12. In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 17.11.2023 ss Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad