High Court of Judicature at Allahabad disposed of an anticipatory bail application by directing the applicants to approach the trial court within 20 days for bail, citing Supreme Court guidelines on bail procedure.
Applicants directed to move bail application before trial court within 20 days for release on bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2553 of 2022
Applicant :- Sandeep And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ronak Chaturvedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Heard Shri Ronak Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present anticipatory bail application has been moved by the accused/applicants - Sandeep and Rahul in Case Crime No.469 of 2021, under Sections 452, 323, 336, 504, 506 I.P.C, Police Station Jani, District Meerut, with the prayer to grant them anticipatory bail as they are apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have falsely been implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.
It is also submitted that charge sheet in the instant case has been filed and the alleged offences against the applicants are punishable with up to 7 years imprisonment.
It is next submitted that the applicants are having apprehension that in pursuance of coercive process issued by the trial court the applicants may be arrested without there being any sufficient material collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and thus the protection from arrest be granted to the applicants and anticipatory bail application be allowed.
Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that no investigation has now been pending. Charge sheet has already been filed in the court and the court has taken cognizance and therefore the instant application is not maintainable as well as there is no apprehension of arrest as no warrants have been issued by the trial court.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the record, the grievance of the applicants appears to be that though during the course of investigation they were not arrested by the Investigating Officer by virtue of Section 41-A Code of Criminal Procedure and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014)8 SCC 273, however they are having apprehension that they may be arrested in compliance of the process issued by the trial court.
The Hon'ble Supreme Curt in Satender Kumar Antill Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : MANU/SC/1024/2021had held as under:-
"3. We are inclined to accept the guidelines and make them a part of the order of the Court for the benefit of the Courts below. The guidelines are as under:
"Categories/Types of Offences
A) Offences punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less not falling in category B & D.
B) Offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for more than 7 years.
C) Offences punishable under Special Acts containing stringent provisions for bail like NDPS (S.37), PMLA (S.45), UAPA (S.43D(5), Companies Act, 212(6), etc.
D) Economic offences not covered by Special Acts. Requisite Conditions 1) Not arrested during investigation. 2) Cooperated throughout in the investigation including appearing before Investigating Officer whenever called. (No need to forward such an accused along with the chargesheet (Siddharth v. State of UP, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 615)
CATEGORY A
After filing of chargesheet/complaint taking of cognizance a) Ordinary summons at the 1st instance/including permitting appearance through Lawyer.
b) If such an accused does not appear despite service of summons, then Bailable Warrant for physical appearance may be issued.
c) NBW on failure to failure to appear despite issuance of Bailable Warrant.
d) NBW may be cancelled or converted into a Bailable Warrant/Summons without insisting physical appearance of accused, if such an application is moved on behalf of the
accused before execution of the NBW on an undertaking of the accused to appear physically on the next date/s of hearing. e) Bail applications of such accused on appearance may be decided w/o the accused being taken in physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided. CATEGORY B/D
On appearance of the accused in Court pursuant to process issued bail application to be decided on merits."
CATEGORY C
Same as Category B & D with the additional condition of compliance of the provisions of Bail under NDPS S. 37, 45 PMLA, 212(6) Companies Act 43 d(5) of UAPA, POSCO etc.
4. Needless to say that the category A deals with both police cases and complaint cases.
5. The trial Courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid guidelines while considering bail applications. The caveat which has been put by learned ASG is that where the accused have not cooperated in the investigation nor appeared before the Investigating Officers, nor answered summons when the Court feels that judicial custody of the accused is necessary for the completion of the trial, where further investigation including a possible recovery is needed, the aforesaid approach cannot give them benefit, something we agree with.
6. We may also notice an aspect submitted by Mr. Luthra that while issuing notice to consider bail, the trial Court is not precluded from granting interim bail taking into consideration the conduct of the accused during the investigation which has not warranted arrest. On this aspect also we would give our imprimatur and naturally the bail application to be ultimately considered, would be guided by the statutory provisions."
Thus without entering into merits and demerits of the case the instant anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the applicants is disposed of in terms that the applicants may move an appropriate application before the trial court for releasing them on bail and if such application is moved within 20 days from today the trial court shall pass appropriate order in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antill (supra).
Order Date :- 5.4.2022 Muk
Digitally signed by MOHD UMAR KHAN Date: 2022.04.06 10:02:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners can maintain an anticipatory bail application after the charge sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken by the trial court.
What procedure trial courts should follow regarding bail applications in cases punishable under Sections 452, 323, 336, 504, and 506 I.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arnesh Kumar v. State of BiharReferred¶14
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014)8 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
Satender Kumar Antill Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and othersReferred¶15
Satender Kumar Antill Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : MANU/SC/1024/2021
Siddharth v. State of UPReferred¶21
Siddharth v. State of UP, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 615 · Who else cites this
Sandeep And Another
Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
