Court No. - 36
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9384 of 2021 Applicant :- Mohammad Irfan Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vindeshwari Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. through video conferencing.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant, Mohammad Irfan, in Case Crime No. 30 of 2004, under Sections- 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Amroha Nagar, District- Amroha/J.P.Nagar.
On the matter being taken up today, learned AGA has submitted that in the present matter F.I.R. is of the year 2004 and charge sheet against the applicant was submitted way-back on 29.5.2005 on which cognizance has already been taken by the competent Court and as such present anticipatory application is liable to be dismissed.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and finds substance in the arguments so advanced by learned A.G.A. Admittedly, the matter is of the year 2004 and the charge-sheet dated 29.5.2005 was challenged by the applicant before this Court in Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 10234 of 2005 whereby this Court had accorded interim relief to the applicant vide order dated 1.8.2005. Finally, the said application was dismissed on 13.1.2011. Now the warrant has been issued against the applicant and there is apprehension of arrest of the applicant hence this anticipatory bail application.
This Court while considering CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. -
2110 of 2021 Shivam Vs. State of U.P. And Another has proceeded to observe in detail as to when anticipatory bail cannot be granted to an accused after submission of charge- sheet. For ready reference, paragraph 43 of the said judgment is reproduced herein below.
"43) However, in the following cases, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to an accused after submission of charge-sheet :-
1) Where the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet but it is argued that the statements of the witnesses recorded are not truthful. Truthfulness or otherwise of the statements of the witnesses recorded by investigating officer in support of complaint case are to be tested during trial and not at the stage of consideration of anticipatory bail application;
2) Where the F.I.R/complaint discloses the alleged offences and the Investigating Officer has collected material which supports the same, without any contradiction, even after considering the statements/material provided by the accused side;
3) Where there are cross cases registered by both the parties against each other and the offences alleged is fully proved and charge-sheet has been submitted. Since the incident, as alleged, has been found to have taken place and both the parties admit such an occurrence, hence, there is no doubt about the incident taking place;
4) Where charge-sheet has been submitted after compliance of the legal formalities like sanction for prosecution and the F.I.R/complaint has been lodged by the competent authority and there is supporting evidence;
5) Where the counterblast implication is alleged that earlier incident took place much before with the incident in dispute and there is no proximity of the second incident in terms of time with the second incident;
6) Where there exists a civil remedy but on the same set of allegations, civil wrong and criminal wrong both are made out and charge-sheet has been submitted only regarding the criminal wrong;
7) Where the Investigating Officer has approached the accused for recording of his statement during investigation and he has refused to give his statement to the Investigating Officer in his defence and charge-sheet has been submitted against him;
8) Where the accused has unsuccessfully challenged the charge-sheet before this Court or any proceedings are pending before this Court regarding the charge-sheet submitted against the accused;
9) Where the offence alleged is serious in nature, the accused is habitual in criminality, tendency of abscondance, has violated the conditions of bail granted to him earlier, etc.; and
10) Where the accused is avoiding appearance before the Court after the cognizance of offence has been taken by the Court on a police report or in a complaint and coercive processes have been repeatedly issued against him and there is no valid explanation given by the accused for his non-appearance before the Court."
Bare perusal of material brought on record as well as judgement of this Court in Shivam (supra), the Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
The present anticipatory bail application is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 19.5.2021 A.K.Srivastava