Allowed

Virender v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2021ABAIL/10667/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted anticipatory bail to Virender under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a criminal complaint involving sections 323, 354, 452 IPC, considering his clean antecedents and the delay in FIR registration, subject to strict conditions regarding investigation cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, surrender of passports, and compliance with investigation conditions including 48-hour notice for interrogation.

Virender Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10667 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Virender Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vikrant Rana,Kapil Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

(1) Heard Sri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶6

(2) The instant application is being moved by the applicant Virender invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C., apprehending his arrest in connection with Case Crime No.288 of 2020, under Sections 323, 354Kha, 452, 504, 506, P.S. Jarcha-2, District Gautam Budh Nagar during the pendency of the trial.

¶7

(3) The instant anticipatory bail application is being filed by the applicant aggrieved by the order dated 07.04.2021 by which learned trial court has rejected their anticipatory bail application. Hence, the present anticipatory bail application.

¶8

(4) Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the court to Clause-7 of Section 438 Cr.P.C. (U. P. Act No. 4 of 2021), which read thus :

¶9

"(7) If an application under this section has been made by any person to the High Court, no application by the same person shall be entertained by the Court of Sessions."

¶10

After interpreting the aforesaid clause it is clear that the Legislature in its wisdom bestowed two avenues open for the accused. If the accused has chosen to come to the High Court straightway, then he would not be relegated back to exhaust his remedy before the Court of Sessions first.

¶11

(5) Prior notice of this 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 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Vs. State of U.P. , hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned AGA as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P.Amendment) is not required.

¶12

(6) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicants have got no criminal antecedents and he has not undergone any imprisonment after conviction by any court of law in relation to any cognizable offence previously. An assurance was also advanced by learned counsel for the applicants on behalf of the applicant that he would render all requisite co-operation and assistance in the process of law and with the investigation agency and shall not create any hindrance to reach to its logical conclusion and shall not flee away from the course of justice.

¶13

(7) Learned counsel for the applicant has strenuously argued that the applicant have been made target just to besmirch his reputation and belittle him in the public estimate by the informant. Number of arguments were advanced by learned counsel for the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the accusation made in the FIR against the applicant by the informant. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgements in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 ; Jogender Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (1994) 4 SCC 260 and Sanaul Haque Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2008) Crl.L.J. 1998 , to buttress his contention.

¶14

(8) In the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court has opined that the pith and core is that the police officer before arrest must put questions to himself, Why arrest?, Is it really required?, What purpose it will serve?, What object it will achieve? If it is only after these questions are addressed and one or other conditions, as enumerated above, are satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. Before the arrest the police office should have a reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police officer has to satisfy further that the arrest is necessary for one or more purposes envisaged in sub-clauses (a) to (e) to Clause-I of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶15

(9) In this backdrop of legal proposition, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present FIR was got registered by one Ms. Shayara after 12 days of the incident. Submission made by the Counsel that the date of birth of the applicant is 1949 and therefore on the date of the incident the applicant is aged about 71 years. There is no plausible justification coming forward for this inordinate delay in lodging the present FIR.

¶16

(10) Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application by mentioning that though the applicant has got no criminal antecedent but there is nothing on record to satisfy that the police personnel are after the applicant to arrest them. The alleged apprehension on behalf of applicant is imaginary and unfounded one. Learned AGA has also submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made in the FIR, the applicant is not entitled for any relaxation from this Court.

¶17

(11) After considering the record of the case as available before the Court, in the light of rival submissions made at the Bar and keeping in view the nature and gravity of the accusation, antecedents of the applicant, his undertaking to make himself available to the authorities whenever required, the Court feels satisfied that it would be expedient to grant an order of anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant. Thus, the instant Anticipatory Bail Application stands ALLOWED .

¶18

(12) Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may be adversely affect the investigation and subsequent stage of the case, the Court directs that in the event of arrest of the applicant in aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the line amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the condition that :-

¶19

(I) The applicant shall make themselves available for the interrogation

¶20

by the police as and when required. The Investigation Officer of the case would give 48 hours prior notice or telephonically inform the concerned accused-applicant to remain available to him for the purpose of interrogation and the accused-applicants are obliged to abide by such directions.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(IV) In the event the applicant is having their passports, they will have to surrender the same before the concerned SP/SSP of the District till the submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

¶24

(13) In the event, the applicant breach or attempt to breath any of the aforesaid conditions or wilfully violate 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 Sessions for cancellation of bail and the Court of Sessions has every liberty and freedom to revoke the anticipatory bail after recording the reasons for the same.

¶25

Order Date :- 19.7.2021 Abhishek Sri.

¶26

Digitally signed by Justice Rahul Chaturvedi Date: 2021.07.21 13:21:03 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Virender v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virender v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikram Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Sonkar and 2 Other Vs State of U.P.

Munni and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Shadab Ahamad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anurag Shukla Vs State of U.P.