Anurag Singh Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:163328

Court No. - 73

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4430 of 2023

Applicant :- Anurag Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Anurag Singh seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.42 of 2023, under Sections 3,4,5,6 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, P.S. Lohta, District Varanasi.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. The investigation of the case is going-on and charge-sheet has not been filed. Applicant has no criminal history to his credit. It is further submitted that vide order dated 20.4.2023 the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail and he has not misused the said liberty. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

From the perusal of the record, it reveals that the applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 20.4.2023 and he has not misused the said liberty. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.

¶12

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that

¶13

while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶14

In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶15

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC before the Competent Court.

¶16

10. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any

¶20

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶22

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.

¶23

Order Date :- 11.8.2023

¶24

safi

¶25

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anurag Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anurag Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Soveer Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Indal Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Sattar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Praveen Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Pundhir and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Arif and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another