Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 19276 of 2021 Applicant :- Keshav Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Mishra,Abhay Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicant for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No 965 of 2021, under Sections 452, 325, 308, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Khuria Nagar, District Bulandshahar.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant 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. The present FIR has been lodged in counter of the FIR lodged by the applicant, as such, the case is of counter blast. There is no previous criminal antecedents of the applicant. 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.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that applicant is named in the FIR and direct allegation against the applicant. The applicant has beaten the informant, as a result whereof, the informant received serious injuries and his ribs has got fractured and the informant's brother and cousin also sustained grievous injuries. The applicant lodged FIR after filing the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The applicant is 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 merits of the case and considering the submissions advanced, the nature and gravity of the accusation, I find no good ground for anticipatory bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant- Keshav, involved in Case Crime No 965 of 2021, under Sections 452, 325, 308, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Khuria Nagar, District Bulandshahar is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 16.12.2021 Nitin Verma