Court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by Satveer Khatana. The application was dismissed due to non-appearance of counsel and lack of prima facie case based on available materials, with interim bail earlier granted discharged.
Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. rejected; 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. - 403 of 2020
Applicant :- Satveer Khatana Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Basu Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
List revised. None appears on behalf of the applicant to address the Court. Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State is present.
The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0217 of 2019, under Section 3/5 Prevention of Damage Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station-Expressway Sector 135, Noida, District-Gautam Budhh Nagar with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.
On 09.01.2020, interim anticipatory bail was granted to the applicants.
Even after last opportunity was given to the learned counsel for the applicant to argue the matter and filing of rejoinder affidavit, today, also no one has appeared to argue the matter even in revised call.
Perusal of the order sheet, it is clear that charge sheet has already submitted in this case regarding encroachment upon public property.
Learned A.G.A. submits that charge sheet has been submitted in this matter. He further submits that offence regarding encroachment upon public property are serious in nature. From
the material as collected by the Investigating Officer, credible, clinching as well as documentary evidences showing the complicity of commission of the crime has been found, therefore, the charge sheet has been submitted. He has further submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicants, they are entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicants are not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
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 applicant 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.
In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, 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 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, forthwith.
Order Date :- 23.1.2023 Rahul.
Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a charge sheet case.
Whether the court's discretionary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be exercised given the seriousness of the alleged offence and non-appearance of counsel.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Satveer Khatana
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
