Disposed

Safik v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Mar 2025NABAIL/1303/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Miscellaneous Anticipatory Bail Application, the Allahabad High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail but observed that the applicant's freedom is protected if the Investigating Officer serves notice under Sections 41 and 41A CrPC. The court emphasized adherence to Arnesh Kumar guidelines for arrest.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed off; applicant's freedom protected subject to service of notice under Sections 41 and 41A CrPC by I.O.

Safik vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29269

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1303 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Safik Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Binod Kumar Yadav,Raj Nath Bhakta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Binod Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No. 838 of 2024, under Sections 303(2) B.N.S. and Section 33 of Indian Forest Act, Police Station- Bahedi, DistrictBareilly, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive; there is no direct evidence against the applicant. Prima facie , no offence under alleged sections is made out against the applicant. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation.

¶9

On facts and circumstances, no case is made out to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶10

However, considering the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment passed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 , where guidelines have been given for arresting a person, which are being reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶11

"Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction:

¶12

All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Cr.P.C.;

¶13

All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);

¶14

The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;

¶15

The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention; The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

¶16

Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

¶17

Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

¶18

Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

¶19

We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine."

¶20

In the recent judgment in the case of MD. Asfak Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand and another passed in Criminal Appeal No. (S) 2207 of 2023 decided on 31.07.2023, the Apex Court has reiterated the guidelines given in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).

¶21

Taking into account the totality of the fact and circumstances of the case and the in the light of the ratio laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and reiterated in the case of MD. Asfak Alam (supra), the freedom of the applicant is protected, provided if the I.O. of the case gives notice to them as provided under Sections 41 and 41(A) of Cr.P.C. and summon the applicant in this case, applicant is obliged to render his fullest cooperation in the investigation.

¶22

It is made clear that if some credible material is brought on record during investigation against the applicant, then only the I.O. of the case after recording its reason may affect the arrest of the applicant, strictly adhering to the guidelines provided in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and MD. Asfak Alam (supra).

¶23

With the aforesaid observations, the instant anticipatory bail application stands disposed off.

¶24

Order Date :- 3.3.2025 Nitin Verma

¶25

Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Safik v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Safik v. State of U.P.

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

Bhupendra Singh Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramkali Alias Geeta vs State of U.P. and Another

Monu Sharma @ Manish vs State of U.P. and Another

Shailendra Singh @ Kaka vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyapal Sharma and Another vs State of U.P. and Another