Single judge discharged interim order and rejected the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. citing lack of apprehension of arrest and serious nature of allegations as per evidence on record.
Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; interim bail, if any, discharged; parties directed to proceed with criminal trial.
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. - 1820 of 2021
Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Prajapati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sameer Jain,Amarnath Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Lakshman Tripathi
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
List has been revised.
Learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Counsel for the informant are not present. Sri K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State is present.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 24 of 2020, under Section 376, 506, 342, 120B IPC, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Varanasi, with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.
Perusal of the record goes to show that on 29.1.2021 applicant was granted anticipatory bail.
Learned AGA points out that the charge-sheet has been submitted on 6.2.2021 which shows that the allegations against the applicant is proved on the basis cogent and material evidence collected by the investigating officer and offence is serious in nature.
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 can-not 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 applicants to flee from Justice , apprehension of tampering of 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.
From perusal of the records, it transpires that there is nothing on record to show apprehension of arrest of the applicants nor has any such averment been made in the affidavit regarding the same.
In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, taking into consideration the role assigned to the applicants 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 applicants.
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 is 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 conclusions according to law on the basis of materials/ evidences on record.
Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Court/authority for necessary information and compliance.
Order Date :- 27.1.2023 S. Singh
Digitally signed by :- SAVITA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving Sections 376, 506, 342 IPC.
Whether the applicant has shown any apprehension of arrest or caused grounds for bail consideration.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sanjeev Kumar Prajapati
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
