Allahabad High Court
Sumit Singh @ Deepak Bhadauria vs State Of U.P. on 6 May, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:71938 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 3282 of 2025 Applicant :- Sumit Singh @ Deepak Bhadauria Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Mishra,Saurabh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. This is the second anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected by this Court on 21.2.2024 in CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 17609 of 2021.
3. Heard Sri Saurabh Mishra, learned counsel for applicant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material available on record.
4. The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for protection in regard to Case No. 66 of 2024, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 80 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 327, 332, 333, 336, 353, 504, 506 I.P.C., Section 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, P.S.- Barhpura, District- Etawah.
PROSECUTION STORY:
5. As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith four named persons and about 20 unknown persons are stated to have assaulted the police personnel on 27.7.2021 at about 7.30 am.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
6. The applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has the apprehension of his arrest. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution.
7. The FIR is delayed by about 13 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
8. There are five police personnel who sustained injuries in the instant case but all the injuries are simple in nature. There is nothing on record to suggest as to how the applicant was identified to be one of the assailants, as such, the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail.
9. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.10.2021 in CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.17609 of 2021 for a period of 90 days or till the submission of report u/s 173 (2) Cr.P.C. The said anticipatory bail application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 21.2.2024 and the following order was passed:-
“Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Present application has been filed by the applicant, namely, Sumit Singh @ Deepak Bhadauriya invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. stating therein that he reasonably apprehends his arrest by the police for having committed a non-bailable offence registered vide Case Crime No. 80 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 327, 332, 333, 336, 353, 504, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Barhpura, District- Etawah.
Perusal of the record shows that the prayer for anticipatory bail has already been rejected by the court below vide its order dated 8.9.2021.
It is further germane to point out here that prior notice of this anticipatory bail application was served in the Office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that similarly co-accused Chhotu @ Bhanu Pratap and Ravi Singh Bhadauriya @ Raghuvar Singh Bhadauria have already been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 15884 of 2021 vide order dated 30.9.2021 and Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 15879 of 2021 vide order dated 8.10.2021 and the case of the applicant stands on the same footing as that of co-accused who have already been granted bail. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in paragraph 15 of the bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has not been convicted by any court of law. He has further submitted that the applicant shall render all co-operation and assistance to the investigative Authorities in carrying out the investigation. He has further submitted that there is no possibility of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the evidence. The applicant is ready to furnish a personal bond and reliable sureties.
Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed implicit reliance upon the decisions reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and another and (1994) 4 SCC 260 Joginder Kumar vs State of U.P. and others.
Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that looking to the seriousness and gravity of the offence, the applicant is not entitled for indulgence of this Court.
Looking to the facts of the case and submissions made, a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant is made out pending investigation.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court directs that in the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime number, he shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer till the submission of report under Section 173(2) CrPC by the Investigating Officer subject to the following conditions that :
(i) The applicant shall make himself available for the interrogation by the police as and when required. The Investigating Officer of the case would give 48 hours prior notice or telephonically inform the concerned accused-applicant to remain available to him for the purposes of interrogation and the accused-applicant is obliged to abide by such directions.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threats or comments to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the correct facts to the court or to the police officer.
(iii) The Investigating Officer of the case would make all necessary endeavour to gear up the investigation in utmost transparent and professional way and would try to conclude the same within a maximum period of 90 days. During this period the accused-applicant would not leave the State of Uttar Pradesh without informing the Investigating Officer of the case and sharing his contact number.
(iv) In the event the applicant is having his passports, he will have to surrender the same before the concerned SP/SSP of the District till the submission of report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C.
In the event, the applicant breaches or attempts to breach any of the aforesaid conditions or wilfully violates above conditions or abstains himself from the investigation, it would be open for the Investigating Officer or the concerned authority to apply before the court of Session for cancellation of interim protection and the Court of Session has every liberty and freedom to revoke the anticipatory bail after recording the reasons for the same.
Learned A.G.A. shall file counter affidavit soon after submission of report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. or 90 days, whichever is earlier.
The instant protection would continue till the submission of charge sheet or 90 days, whichever is earlier.
List this anticipatory bail application after two months before appropriate Court.”
10. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTY/STATE:
11. The prayer for anticipatory bail has been opposed on the ground that the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail for a period of 90 days or till submission of report u/s 173(2), whichever is earlier, vide order dated 22.10.2021 and the final report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted against the applicant on 28.12.2021 and he neither complied with the said order nor surrendered before the Court concerned till today.
CONCLUSION:
12. Counsel for the applicant did not appear in this Court till 21.2.2024 and his bail was dismissed having been rendered infructuous.
13. There is no new ground to grant anticipatory bail, that too, in a second motion. Rather, the instant act of the applicant tantamounts to forum shopping. In the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Union of India vs. Cipla Limited and Another, (2017) 5 SCC 262, forum shopping has been termed as disreputable practice.
14. Considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also the facts of the case, after perusing the earlier order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and there being five police personnel, who sustained injuries in the said case and the applicant being one of the named accused persons, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant as the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant pertains to regular bail application and cannot be agitated u/s 482 BNSS at this stage.
15. In Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2018) 13 SCC 813, the Supreme Court has held that the satisfaction of the court for granting protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is different from the one under Section 439 Cr.P.C. while considering regular bail. In Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs. State of Haryana and another (2023) 8 SCC 181, the Supreme Court has opined that the relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest.
16. A three Judge bench of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.872-873 of 2020 ‘Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla Vs. Smt. Anita Agarwal & others’ held that:
19. It is apposite to mention here the distinction between the considerations which guide the grant of anticipatory bail and regular bail. In Pokar Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (1985) 2 SCC 597, while setting aside an order granting anticipatory bail, this Court observed:
5. Relevant considerations governing the court’s decision in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 are materially different from those when an application for bail by a person who is arrested in the course of investigation as also by a person who is convicted and his appeal is pending before the higher court and bail is sought during the pendency of the appeal. Three situations in which the question of granting or refusing to grant bail would arise, materially and substantially differ from each other and the relevant considerations on which the courts would exercise its discretion, one way or the other, are substantially different from each other. This is necessary to be stated because the learned Judge in the High Court unfortunately fell into an error in mixing up all the considerations, as if all the three become relevant in the present situation.
6. The decision of the Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 clearly lays down that “the distinction between an ordinary order of bail and an order of anticipatory bail is that whereas the former is granted after arrest and therefore means release from the custody of the police, the latter is granted in anticipation of arrest and is therefore effective at the very moment of arrest”. Unlike a post-arrest order of bail, it is a pre-arrest legal process which directs that if the person in whose favour it is issued is thereafter arrested on the accusation in respect of which the direction is issued, he shall be released on bail. A direction under Section 438 is intended to confer conditional immunity from the touch as envisaged by Section 46(1) or confinement. In para 31, Chandrachud, C.J. clearly demarcated the distinction between the relevant considerations while examining an application for anticipatory bail and an application for bail after arrest in the course of investigation. Says the learned Chief Justice that in regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. It was observed that “it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides, and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond”. Some of the relevant considerations which govern the discretion, noticed therein are “the nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant’s presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and ‘the larger interests of the public or the State’, are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail”. A caution was voiced that “in the evaluation of the consideration whether the applicant is likely to abscond, there can be no presumption that the wealthy and the mighty will submit themselves to trial and that the humble and the poor will run away from the course of justice, any more than there can be a presumption that the former are not likely to commit a crime and the latter are more likely to commit it”.
17. In view of the above, the present anticipatory bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 6.5.2025
Shalini
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
[ad_1]
Source link