The High Court rejected an application for anticipatory bail. The applicant failed to appear; the State argued a charge-sheet was filed proving cogent evidence. The Court found no case for exercising discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Rejection of application for anticipatory bail. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
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. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12111 of 2021
Applicant :- Sahdev Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
List revised. No one appears on behalf of the applicant to press this application. Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. is present for the State.
The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 103 of 2021, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 354(a) IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act, 2012, P.S. Sonaha, District-Basti with the prayer that in the event of arrest the applicant may be released on bail.
I have heard learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Perusal of record shows that the applicant did not appear on the first date itself i.e. 18.6.2021 to argue the matter. Today, again he is not present.
Learned A.G.A., on the basis of instructions, submits that charge-sheet has already been submitted in the matter on 07.7.2021 which proves that investigating officer has collected cogent evidence to prove the offence against the applicant.
Object of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains. It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this Court cannot be put in a straitjacket formula, but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from justice, apprehension of tampering the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation, trial or society, etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the
conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society.
In the light of above, having heard learned A.G.A. and looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, taking into consideration the role assigned to the applicant as per prosecution case, gravity and nature of accusation as well as reasons mentioned above, this court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power under section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure is made out in favour of applicant.
Accordingly this application under section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected . Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
It is open to the court/ authority concerned to proceed in accordance with law.
It is clarified that observations made in this order, at this stage, are limited for the purpose of determination of this anticipatory bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The investigating officer of this case shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusion according to law on the basis of material/ evidences on record.
Registrar (Compliance) is directed to inform about this order the concerned court/authority for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 3.2.2023 DS
Digitally signed by :- DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted given the gravity of the allegations and the role attributed to the applicant.
Whether the applicant can be released on bail in the event of arrest under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sahdev
State of U.P.
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
