Allahabad High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 6985 of 2025 Islam And Another State of U.P. Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Chandra Prakash Srivastava : G.A. Court No. - 69 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned AGA for the State, and perused the material available on record. 2. The present application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants in Case No. 21 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 184 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the instant case. A wholly commercial dispute between the parties has been given colour of a criminal case. The alleged non-payment of money or breach of terms of the agreement would, at the most, constitute a civil wrong. The essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences are not made out. At this stage there is no credible evidence against the applicants to link with the offence. The investigation has been completed. The applicants had cooperated in the investigation. The applicants have been summoned by the court concerned. He further contends that the maximum sentence provided for the alleged offences is upto seven years. He submits 2 NABAIL No. 6985 of 2025 that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773, the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest in the above mentioned case. In case the applicants are released on anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. The Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) has laid down the guidelines with regard to enlargement of an accused on bail. The guidelines provided category/type of offences. One of the categories being Category-A is offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less. The Supreme Court in paragraph-3 of the aforesaid judgment has laid the charge that after down the guidelines filing of sheet/cognizance ordinarily the summons are required to be issued permitting the appearance of the accused through lawyer and the bail applications of the accused persons on appearance are to be decided without the accused being taken into custody or by granting interim bail. A perusal of the aforesaid guidelines would demonstrate that the liberty of an individual has been recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. It is further to be noted that as per Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also, during investigation the liberty of an individual is protected in respect of an offence where the maximum punishment provided is upto seven years. 7. It is not the case of the opposite party that the applicants were arrested for the alleged offences during investigation and it is also not the case of the opposite party that the applicants had not co- operated in the investigation. Once no apprehension has been raised with regard to the conduct of the applicants and the 3 NABAIL No. 6985 of 2025 applicants have been charge-sheeted and summoned in respect of offence in which punishment provided is upto seven years, then in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) the liberty of the individual is required to be protected. 8. It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would disentitle the applicants for relief of anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern has been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused are of such character that their mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use their liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence. 9. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicants fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State. 10. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the applicants, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicants and the fact that the alleged non-payment of money or breach of terms of the agreement would, at the most, constitute a civil wrong; the essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences are not made out; at this stage there is no substantive evidence to link the applicants with the offence; the applicants had cooperated in the investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted and the applicants have been summoned by the concerned court, the offences against the applicants are punishable up to seven years and adhering to the guidelines provided in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 11. In the event of arrest, the applicants- Islam and Istekar, 4 NABAIL No. 6985 of 2025 involved in the aforesaid case, be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) the applicants shall make themselves available on each date fixed in the matter by the court concerned; (ii) the applicants 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; (iii) the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport the same shall be deposited by them before the concerned court. 12. In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.
Decision
13. The application stands disposed of. September 9, 2025 SKT/- (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad