Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. against charges of assaulting police personnel. Court noted prima facie case, accused's antecedents, and impact on investigation while citing Supreme Court precedents.
Application for anticipatory bail dismissed. No interim bail granted.
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:158292
Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8057 of 2024 Applicant :- Roshni Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satyam Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
3-A. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that statement of applicant has been recorded by the Investigating Officer in pursuance to order dated 3.9.2024 of this Court.
applicant with regard to video, learned counsel for the applicant could not explain the same and the only explanation offered by learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant has been falsely implicated being family members of principal accused. It is submitted that applicant has no previous criminal history.
"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.
(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;
(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;
(iii) the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice;
(iv) the likelihood of the accused repeating similar or other offences;
(v) whether the accusations have been made only with the object
of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting them;
(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
(vii) the courts must carefully evaluate the entire material against the accused. The court must also clearly 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;
(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;
(ix) the reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
(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."
"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."
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.
Order Date :- 27.9.2024
D. Tamang
Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is prima facie falsely implicated in the FIR involving assault on police personnel warranting anticipatory bail?
Whether the nature and gravity of the accusation under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, and 307 IPC preclude the grant of anticipatory bail?
Whether the applicant has demonstrated exceptional circumstances such as lack of apprehension of harassment or false implication necessary for anticipatory bail?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sabita Paul v. State of West BengalRelied on¶13
Sabita Paul v. State of West Bengal, 2024 INSC 245 · Who else cites this
Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla v. Anita Agarwal & OrsRelied on¶14
Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla v. Anita Agarwal & Ors
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶14
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 · Who else cites this
Shrikant Upadhyay and others Vs State of Bihar and anotherRelied on¶26
Shrikant Upadhyay and others Vs State of Bihar and another, 2024 INSC 202 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Roshni
Vikram D. Chauhan
Dhirendra Tamang
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Vikram D. Chauhan and Dhirendra Tamang
Parties & counsel
