Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 19864 of 2021 Applicant :- Amresh Yadav 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the accused-applicants for enlarging them on bail in Case Crime No. 259 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427, 325, 308 I.P.C., P.S. Chaubeypur, District Varanasi.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case due to cross case; there is no direct evidence against the applicants; there is no criminal history against the applicant. It is submitted that the applicants are apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail with the contention that injured has received injuries which is clear from the report. The applicants are not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected.
The 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 cannot 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 tempering 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.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the submission advanced, the nature and gravity of the accusation, I find no good ground for anticipatory bail to the applicants in the aforesaid case.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 21.12.2021 Meenu