1. Heard Sri Lalji Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants at the very outset submits that he does not want to press this anticipatory bail application with regard to applicant No.s 1 and 2. The petition is accordingly dismissed as not pressed with respect to petitioner No.s 1 and 2.
3. The present petition is being heard in respect of petitioner No.s 3 and 4 only.
4. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant No.s 3 and 4 that they are co-accused in case crime No.526/2020 under Sections- 308, 325, 323, 504 IPC at police station Nanpara, District Bahraich. As per the version stated in the first information report the applicants No.3 and 4 have been given the role of assaulting the complainant thereby injuring the complainant and his son on head. The said fact is also corroborated by the medical report. The only ground pressed by the applicant No.s 3 and 4 is that during investigation it has come on record that accused were armed with sharp edged weapon and only on the basis of the testimony learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that looking into the said statement the entire version of the prosecution appears to be false.
5. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, submits that there is sufficient material which point towards the complicity of the applicants in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
6. Considering the entire conspectus of the case it is clear that definite role has been assigned the applicant No.s 3 and 4 in the commission of the offence. The said fact is also corroborated by the medical report. In the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it has also come that the complainant and his son were assaulted by the applicants.
7. The relevant considerations for grant of anticipatory bail have been duly considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694 which reads as under:
"112.The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:
(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 to flee from justice.
(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences.
(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.
(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people.
(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. 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 the 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 court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness 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."
8. Considering the grounds urged by counsel for the applicant, in light of the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
9. In light of the above,the present application is rejected.
Order Date :- 4.2.2021 (Alok Mathur, J.) RKM.