Anticipatory bail application under section 438 Cr.P.C. in a bribery and criminal intimidation case where a charge-sheet had been filed. The court held that no case was made out for exercising its discretion and rejected the application, clarifying observations were limited to bail determination only.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:182966
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10312 of 2024
Applicant :- Basant Lal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
2-This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant after rejecting his anticipatory bail application by the order dated 24.09.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Court No. 5, Gorakhpur seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 373 of 2021, under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 506 I.P.C., Police Station Colonelganj, District Gonda.
3-As per the prosecution case in brief, informant has lodged a first information report against the applicant for the offence under Section 502 I.P.C. and 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act alleging inter-alia that in a partition case, elder brother of father of the informant got an order dated 09.11.1992 of Additional District Magistrate-IInd, Gonda but the said order was not complied with at the spot as well as in the revenue records and in the meantime, father of the informant died. F.I.R. also alleges that thereafter, the informant met the applicant, who had extracted total Rs. 90,000/- from him to get the said order complied.
4-The investigating officer, conducted the investigation and recorded the statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as his majeed statement, in which he has supported the
version of the first information report. During investigation, informant disclosed that one Umesh Kumar has recorded a video, in which the applicant was seen accepting bribe from him. The investigation, after culmination of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the applicant before the concerned court on 27.10.2022 for the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. and Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, on which the concerned court took cognizance on 16.01.2023 and summoned the applicant to appear before the concerned court below and to face trial.
5-Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and did not committed any offence as alleged by the informant. Applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false and based on concocted facts. Investigating officer has not conducted fair investigation. Lastly, it is submitted that he has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he would not misuse the liberty and would cooperate with the trial.
6-Per contra learned Additional Govt. Advocate for the state of U.P. opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant by contending that investigating officer, after due investigation submitted charge sheet dated 27.10.2022 in this case on the basis of cogent material against the applicant, therefore as on date cognizable offence is made out against the applicant and it can not be presumed that he has been falsely implicated.
7-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 or society, etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society.
8-In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, as well as considering the fact that after investigation charge has been submitted against the applicant, 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.
9-Accordingly this application under section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected .
10-It is clarified that anything said in this order at this stage is limited to 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. Learned trial court concerned shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions according to law on the basis of materials / evidences on record.
Order Date :- 22.11.2024 Saurabh
Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under section 438 Cr.P.C. after charge-sheet in a bribery case.
Whether the discretionary power under section 438 is made out given the gravity of allegations and submission of charge-sheet.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Basant Lal
State of U.P.
Another
Sanjay Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
