Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 19900 of 2021 Applicant :- Mohsin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rameshwar Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA on behalf of the State and perused the record.
This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved by the applicant, Mohsin, seeking bail in Case Crime No.338 of 2021, under Sections 308, 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Dhaulana, District Hapud, till conclusion of trial.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no eye-witness of the incident and during investigation police has not recorded the statement of injured namely Monish and Shabana.
Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submits that investigating officer has recorded statement of the injured and injured in his statement has stated that the applicant came and assaulted the victim.
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.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the parties and looking to seriousness and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the submission advanced, I find that no good ground is made out for enlarging the applicant on bail.
The anticipatory bail application is accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 21.12.2021/SKD