Dismissed

Krishna @ Radhey Kishan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2024ABAIL/7685/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 CrPC. The court held that the applicant's plea of false implication was vague and lacked specific factual foundation, and the gravity of the offence disentitled the applicant to bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed on the ground of lack of merit and insufficient proof of false implication.

Krishna @ Radhey Kishan vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:131023

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7685 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Krishna @ Radhey Kishan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ambreesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This application has been filed by applicant for granting anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0143 of 2024, under Sections 379 and 411 I.P.C., Police Station Acchalda, District Auraiya.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the first information report it is alleged that the co-accused and the applicant have taken away mobile phone of the informant. The coaccused Avlakh was apprehended from the spot and in the confessional statement of the co-accused name of the applicant has surfaced. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. On a pointed query being made to learned counsel for the applicant as to how the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention to paragraph no. 11 of the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application. Paragraph no. 11 of the anticipatory bail application is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶9

" 11. That the applicant and co-accused have prior enmity and belong to the same cast and some civil nature dispute is going on between them due to this reason applicant is falsely implicated to the present F.I.R. "

¶10

A perusal of the aforesaid paragraph alleges that the applicant and co-accused have prior enmity and some civil dispute is going on. Neither any details of the previous enmity nor the details of civil dispute has been stated in the affidavit. The case set up in paragraph no. 11 for false implication is vague in nature.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer.

¶12

In Sabita Paul v. State of West Bengal, 2024 INSC 245 , the Supreme Court has held as under :-

¶13

"6. The concept of anticipatory bail came to be part of the criminal law landscape via the 41st Report of the Law Commission which recommended the inclusion of such a provision, which then stood incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Over the years, many judgments of this Court have considered that a Court must weigh while considering an application for anticipatory bail. In Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla v. Anita Agarwal & Ors1 ., a three-Judge Bench laid down the following factors : "17. The facts which must be borne in mind while considering an application for the grant of anticipatory bail have been elucidated in the decision of this Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] and several other decisions. The factors to be considered include : (SCC pp. 736-37, paras 112-13) "112.

¶14

(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;

¶15

(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;

¶16

(iii) the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice;

¶17

(iv) the likelihood of the accused repeating similar or other offences;

¶18

(v) whether the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting them;

¶19

(vi) the impact of the grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people; (2021) 15 SCC 777

¶20

(vii) the courts must carefully evaluate the entire material against the accused. The court must also clearly

¶21

comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in such cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;

¶22

(viii) while considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;

¶23

(ix) the reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant;

¶24

(x) frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail."

¶25

In Shrikant Upadhyay and others Vs State of Bihar and another, 2024 INSC 202 has observed as under

¶26

"19. The relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and rotecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome."

¶27

A plea of false implication has been raised by the applicant. A plea of false implication is required to be specific and factual foundation of the same is required to be laid down by accused in the pleadings. In Ruli Ram Vs. State of Haryana, (2002) 7 SCC 691 , it has been observed by the Supreme Court that when a plea

¶28

of false implication is advanced by the accused, foundation for the same has to be established. Further, in Ram Udgar Singh Vs. State of Bihar, (2004) 10 SCC 443 , the Apex Court has held that foundation has to be laid if a plea of false implication is made. Vague allegations with regard to plea of false implication raised by accused is not permissible under law. The plea of false implication cannot be on the basis of conjectures. In Brahm Swaroop Vs. State of U.P., (2011) 6 SCC 288 , Supreme Court has observed that a party has to lay down a factual foundation and prove by leading impeccable evidence in respect of its false implication. In the present case vague and general allegations have been made with regard to plea of false implication. The foundational fact and material particulars are absent. Such plea of false implication is not tenable.

¶29

The power of anticipatory bail is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is to be exercised only in exceptional cases where the person is falsely implicated. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule.

¶30

The court owes duty that justice is done to all the parties (i,e accused, prosecution, informant, complainant and victim). The citizens in terms of constitutional mandate are required to abide by law. Where from the material and allegation against an accused, offence is made out, the accused is required to show exceptional circumstances warranting the protection of liberty. No circumstances have been shown by applicant(s) to demonstrate that personal liberty of accused in the facts and circumstances of the case is required to be protected. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the grant of anticipatory bail would lead to miscarriage of justice.

¶31

The Court is required to exercise jurisdiction of anticipatory bail on sound judicial principles. The court should be slow to grant anticipatory bail to an accused who does not abide by law and commits an offence. In the present case, it is not shown by the applicant(s) that the prosecution or complainant has falsely implicated the applicant(s). One cannot lose sight of the fact that unwarranted protection to an accused has adverse effect on the peace and tranquillity of society at large and effects maintenance of law and order in the society. The jurisdiction of anticipatory bail permits the accused to be not produced before the ordinary jurisdictional court although ordinary jurisdictional court at grass root level have greater experience and exposure with regard to situation of maintenance of law and order at the local place. The

¶32

process of anticipatory bail permits consideration of anticipatory bail by Session Court or High Court and not by Magistrate courts. Facts and circumstance of each case is to be examined at the time of consideration of anticipatory bail.

¶33

A perusal of the First Information Report/ Complaint and the material available during investigation would show that offence is made out against the applicant(s). It is not a case where no bailable offence is made out against an accused.

¶34

The grant of anticipatory bail to accused in the present case would have adverse impact on protection of rights and interest of the informant/complainant/victim.

¶35

The nature and gravity of offence and the role play by applicant disentitle the applicant to grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant has failed to show that there is harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of applicant. It is also not shown that there is over implication of the applicant or the applicant has been falsely implicated or there is frivolity in prosecution. A person who has committed an offence is not entitled to grant of discretionary jurisdiction of anticipatory bail unless it is shown that the accused is falsely implicated or is entitled for protection of liberty. A person who has violated the law and has not shown exceptional circumstances is not entitled to the benefit of extraordinary jurisdiction. No extraordinary circumstances have been shown by applicant(s) that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would lead to injustice. Even otherwise, the applicant has failed to demonstrate factors which would entitle the applicant for anticipatory bail.

¶36

In view of the above, the present anticipatory bail application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶37

Order Date :- 13.8.2024 VMA

¶38

Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Krishna @ Radhey Kishan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna @ Radhey Kishan 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashish Kanaujia and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Harbir vs State of Up and 3 Others

Bijnesh Kumar Singh vs State of Up and Another

Jagjeevan Ram and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Kaushar Ali vs State of U.P.

Saurav vs State of U.P.