Allowed

Paragi Lal Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2024ABAIL/23/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted interim anticipatory bail to an applicant in a non-cognizable offence under Sections 468, 470, 471, and 420 IPC. The court directed that if the applicant surrenders within 20 days, the trial court must consider regular bail under Supreme Court guidelines without arrest, pending which bail was granted subject to a bond.

What did the court decide?

Granted interim anticipatory bail on surety of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, conditional upon surrender within 20 days to the trial court for regular bail consideration.

Paragi Lal Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1649

¶3

Court No. - 15

¶4

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 23 of 2024

¶5

Applicant :- Paragi Lal Yadav

¶6

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

¶7

Counsel for Applicant :- Lalji Prasad Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶8

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶9

Heard Shri Lalji Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

The present anticipatory bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Paragi Lal Yadav in Case Crime No. 43 of 2021, under Sections 468, 470, 471, 420 IPC Police Station Machhrehta, District Sitapur with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.

¶11

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. The Investigating Officer has investigated the allegations of the FIR and since the alleged offences were punishable upto seven years of imprisonment, there was no occasion for the Investigating Officer to have arrested the applicant more so when he was cooperating with the investigation and now charge sheet has been submitted with regard to the offences which are all punishable upto seven years of imprisonment. The applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial as he has cooperated in the investigation. The applicant is not having any criminal antecedent, thus, the facility of anticipatory bail be extended to him.

¶12

Learned AGA on the other hand submits that the applicant is accused of committing an heinous offence but could not controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for applicant with regard to the fact that the charged

¶13

¶14

offences are punishable upto seven years and the applicant was not arrested during the course of investigation and now charge sheet has been submitted.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that charged offences against the applicant are punishable with up to 7 years imprisonment. and he was not arrested by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation and charge sheet has been submitted without arresting him. Nothing has been brought on record which may suggest that applicant has not cooperated with the investigation. The applicant is not having any criminal history and the charge sheet has already been submitted.

¶16

It is not in dispute that charge sheet in this case has been filed without arresting the applicants under offences punishable with upto seven years imprisonment.

¶17

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in S atender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773 has chalked out a complete mechanism with regard tot he case wherein the charge sheet has been submitted without arrest of accused person(s) under those offences which are punishable with upto seven years of imprisonment and has held as under:

¶18

"3. We are inclined to accept the guidelines and make them a part of the order of the Court for the benefit of the Courts below. The guidelines are as under:

¶19

"Categories/Types of Offences

¶20

A) Offences punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less not falling in category B & D.

¶21

B) Offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for more than 7 years.

¶22

C) Offences punishable under Special Acts containing stringent provisions for bail like NDPS (S.37), PMLA (S.45), UAPA (S.43D(5), Companies Act, 212(6), etc.

¶23

D) Economic offences not covered by Special Acts.

¶24

Requisite Condition

¶25

Not arrested during investigation.

¶26

Cooperated throughout in the investigation including appearing before Investigating Officer whenever called.

¶27

¶28

(No need to forward such an accused along with the chargesheet (Siddharth v. State of UP, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 615)

¶29

CATEGORY A

¶30

After filing of chargesheet/complaint taking of cognizance

¶31

a) Ordinary summons at the 1st instance/including permitting appearance through Lawyer.

¶32

b) If such an accused does not appear despite service of summons, then Bailable Warrant for physical appearance may be issued.

¶33

c) NBW on failure to failure to appear despite issuance of Bailable Warrant.

¶34

d) NBW may be cancelled or converted into a Bailable Warrant/Summons without insisting physical appearance of accused, if such an application is moved on behalf of the accused before execution of the NBW on an undertaking of the accused to appear physically on the next date/s of hearing.

¶35

e) Bail applications of such accused on appearance may be decided w/o the accused being taken in physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided.

¶36

(emphasis mine)

¶37

CATEGORY B/D

¶38

On appearance of the accused in Court pursuant to process issued bail application to be decided on merits."

¶39

CATEGORY C

¶40

Same as Category B & D with the additional condition of compliance of the provisions of Bail under NDPS S. 37, 45 PMLA, 212(6) Companies Act 43 d(5) of UAPA, POSCO etc.

¶41

Needless to say that the category A deals with both police cases and complaint cases.

¶42

The trial Courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid guidelines while considering bail applications. The caveat which has been put by learned ASG is that where the accused have not cooperated in the investigation nor appeared before the Investigating Officers, nor answered summons when the Court feels that judicial custody of the accused is necessary for the completion of the trial, where further investigation including a possible recovery is needed, the aforesaid approach cannot give them benefit, something we agree with.

¶43

We may also notice an aspect submitted by Mr. Luthra that while issuing notice to consider bail, the trial Court is not precluded from granting interim bail taking into consideration the conduct of the accused during the investigation which has not warranted arrest. On this aspect also we would give our imprimatur and naturally the bail application to be ultimately considered, would be guided by the statutory provisions."

¶44

¶45

The directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) has been again reiterated in the recent judgement in Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. through Director : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 941 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it is held as under:

¶46

"9. In our view, the purport of Section 170, Cr.P.C. should no more be in doubt in view of the recent judgment passed by us in Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 838/2021), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 615). In fact we put to learned senior counsel whether he has come across any view taken by this Court qua the said provision. Learned counsel also refers to judgments of the High Court which we have referred to in that judgment while referring to some judicial pronouncements of this Court on the general principles of bail. The only additional submission made by learned counsel is that while the relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Court on its own Motion v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2004) 72 DRJ 629 have received the imprimatur of this Court, the extracted portions from the judgment of the Delhi High Court did not include para 26. The said paragraph deals with directions issued to the criminal Courts and we would like to extract the portion of the same as under:

¶47

"26. Arrest of a person for less serious or such kinds of offence or offences those can be investigated without arrest by the police cannot be brooked by any civilized society.

¶48

Directions for Criminal Courts:

¶49

(i) Whenever officer-in-charge of police station or Investigating Agency like CBI files a charge-sheet without arresting the accused during investigation and does not produce the accused in custody as referred in Section 170, Cr.P.C. the Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused shall accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed according to the procedure laid down in Section 173, Cr.P.C. and exercise the options available to it as discussed in this judgment. In such a case the Magistrate or Court shall invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest.

¶50

(ii) In case the Court or Magistrate exercises the discretion of issuing warrant of arrest at any stage including the stage while taking cognizance of the chargesheet, he or it shall have to record the reasons in writing as contemplated under Section 87, Cr.P.C. that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him.

¶51

(iii) Rejection of an application for exemption from personal appearance on any date of hearing or even at first instance does not amount to nonappearance despite service of summons or absconding or failure to obey summons and the Court in such a case shall not issue warrant of arrest and may either give direction to the accused to appear or issue process of summons.

¶52

¶53

(iv) That the Court shall on appearance of an accused in a bailable offence release him forthwith on his furnishing a personal bond with or without sureties as per the mandatory provisions of Section 436, Cr.P.C.

¶54

(v) The Court shall on appearance of an accused in non-bailable offence who has neither been arrested by the police/Investigating Agency during investigation nor produced in custody as envisaged in Section 170, Cr.P.C. call upon the accused to move a bail application if the accused does not move it on his own and release him on bail as the circumstance of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. Reason is simple. If a person has been at large and free for several years and has not been even arrested during investigation, to send him to jail by refusing bail suddenly, merely because charge-sheet has been filed is against the basic principles governing grant or refusal of bail.

¶55

xxxxxxxxxx"

¶56

A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170, Cr.P.C. which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173, Cr.P.C. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87, Cr.P.C. that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in Sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.

¶57

Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170 Cr.P.C., the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to

¶58

¶59

suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this.

¶60

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharth v. State of UP : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 615 opined as follows:

¶61

"9. We are in agreement with the aforesaid view of the High Courts and would like to give our imprimatur to the said judicial view. It has rightly been observed on consideration of Section 170 Cr.P.C. that it does not impose an obligation on the Officer-in-charge to arrest each and every accused at the time of filing of the charge-sheet. We have, in fact, come across cases where the accused has cooperated with the investigation throughout and yet on the charge-sheet being filed non-bailable warrants have been issued for his production premised on the requirement that there is an obligation to arrest the accused and produce him before the court. We are of the view that if the investigating officer does not believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons he/she is not required to be produced in custody. The word "custody" appearing in Section 170 Cr.P.C. does not contemplate either police or judicial custody but it merely connotes the presentation of the accused by the investigating officer before the court while filing the charge-sheet.

¶62

We may note 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 we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused."

¶63

Thus, having regard to the law laid down by Hon'ble Surpeme Court in Satender Kumar Antill (supra), Aman Preet Singh (supra) and Siddharth (supra), the instant anticipatory bail application moved by the accusedapplicant- Paragi Lal Yadav is finally disposed of in terms that if applicant appears/ surrenders before the trial court within 20 days from today i.e. till 29.01.2024, and move appropriate application for regular bail before the trial court, the trial court shall be under an obligation to dispose of the same in

¶64

¶65

terms of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antill (supra), Aman Preet Singh (supra) and Siddharth (supra).

¶66

Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above cases and in 'Nathu Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others':(2021)6 SCC 64, to facilitate the surrender/ appearance of the applicant before the trial court, it is provided that for the next 20 days i.e. till 29.01.2024, applicant-Paragi Lal Yadav in case of his arrest under any process of the trial court, shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/ Investigating Officer subject to the following conditions:-

¶67

The applicant shall appear/ surrender before the trial court within 20 days from today i.e. on or before 29.01.2024 and on his surrender/ appearance the trial court shall dispose of his regular bail application strictly in accordance with law propounded in case of Satender Kumar Antill (supra), Aman Preet Singh (supra) and Siddharth (supra).

¶68

If the applicant shall not appear before the trial court on or before 29.01.2024, the trial court thereafter shall be free to issue coercive process against him for procuring his presence before the trial court.

¶69

It is clarified that all the observations contained in this order are only for disposal of this anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial proceedings in any manner.

¶70

Order Date :- 8.1.2024

¶71

Renu

¶72

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Paragi Lal Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paragi Lal Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ankit Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and 3 Others

Pramod Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lucknow, U.P.

Rabia Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko.

Arun Awasthi vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 4 Others

Virendra Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Abhisek Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.