Dismissed

Satyapal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2023ABAIL/5196/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by Satyapal. The court rejected the prayer due to non-appearance by the applicants and lack of any material on record substantiating the apprehension of arrest, holding that bail cannot be granted on imaginary fear.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. rejected; Court directed that the order does not prejudice merits or investigation.

Satyapal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5196 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Satyapal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- K.K.Rao,Pradeep Kumar Srinette Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

List revised. No one has appeared on behalf of the applicants to press this application. Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State is present.

¶6

The applicants have filed present application invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. stating therein that they reasonably apprehend their arrest by the police for having committed a non-bailable offence registered as Case Crime No.495 of 2020, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budhh Nagar.

¶7

Perusal of the record goes to show that learned counsel for the applicants has not argued the matter since 08.04.2021 on several occasions. Today, also no one has appeared on behalf of the applicants even in revised call.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. submits that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicants, they are not 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.

¶9

From the records, it transpires thar 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.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

Accordingly, the application under section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected .

¶14

It is open to the Court/authority concerned to proceed in accordance with law.

¶15

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.

¶16

Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Court/authority for necessary information and compliance.

¶17

Order Date :- 1.2.2023 Rahul.

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satyapal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyapal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aditya Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.

Rajbali Vs State of U.P.and Another

Vinod Kumar Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P.

Tahira Bano Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Shahid Vs State of U.P.