Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 19273 of 2021 Applicant :- Mukesh Yadav @ Mukesh Pratap Singh and another Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shivam Yadav,Uday Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Atharva Dixit,Aushim Luthra
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard Sri V. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Abhishek Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the material brought on record.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicants for enlarging them on bail in Case Crime No.441 of 2021, registered under Sections 147, 323, 504, 394 and 306 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Mahoba.
Learned AGA and informant's counsel raised preliminary objection that applicants without approaching lower court has preferred present Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application before the Hon'ble Court and submits that in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court passed in the case of Ankit Bharti vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2020 (3) ADJ 575 (FB), initially the applicants have to approach concerned District and Sessions Judge.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he has explained the reasons in paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 6 for approaching directly before this Court.
Reasons explained in paras 4, 5 and 6 are sufficient to entertain the present anticipatory bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicants are law abiding person and have not been previously convicted, as such, they have no criminal history. In so far as suicide note is concerned, it cannot be entertain at this stage unless the same is scientifically proven. Allegations levelled against the applicants are only on the basis of hearsay. He has placed reliance in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of M. Mohan Vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, (2011) 3 SCC 626. He has placed reliance another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of M. Arjunan Vs. State represented by its Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315, the relevant para 7 of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-
"7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C."
Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant submitted that applicants are named in the FIR and direct allegation against the applicants and the effect of Sections 107 and 306 involves the consequential process of investigation. The applicants are involved in assaulting the deceased who was handicapped, moreover, applicants have seven cases of criminal history and proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 are going on. 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 applicants, namely, Mukesh Yadav @ Mukesh Pratap Singh and Chandu Kori @ Chandu Arya, involved in Case Crime No.441 of 2021, registered under Sections 147, 323, 504, 394 and 306 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Mahoba is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 16.12.2021 Nitin Verma