Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 19841 of 2021 Applicant :- Ratan Mishra @ Ratan Shivmani Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Through Secretary Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Raj Srivastava,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhishek Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri Saurabh Raj Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhishek Kumar Yadav, learned Advocate appearing for the informant as well as the learned AGA and perused the record.
Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Ratan Mishra @ Ratan Shivmani Mishra in Case Crime No. 194 of 2021, under Sections 147, 149, 452, 323, 504, 506, 307, 511, 392, 120-B IPC, Police Station - Jaitpura, District - Varanasi.
Sri Chaturvedi, learned Sr. Advocate argued that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. He has no concern with the present matter. He is presently residing at Bombay. It appears improbable and unbelievable that he would come at the house of the informant to extend threat to her. It is further argued that allegations levelled in the FIR are false. FIR was lodged belatedly but no plausible explanation has been given. Even date of offence has also not been disclosed in the FIR. There are number of criminal proceedings pending against the victim/informant. This fact itself shows that FIR was lodged against the applicant on the basis of false facts. It is also argued that procedure applicable for issuance of the non bailable warrant and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have not been followed. At no point of time applicant extends threat to the victim nor went to her house nor snatched the mobile of the victim. At this juncture learned counsel for the applicant also referred to the contents of the FIR, statement of the victim/informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and further argued that there is no chance of his fleeing away from the course of law. There is no criminal history of the applicant. Applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty and will cooperate with the investigation. Applicant has apprehension of his arrest by the police any time.
To substantiate his argument learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the following case laws :
1. Case U/S 482/378/407 No. 5195 of 2021 (Vinod Kumar Singh @ Vinod Singh Vs. State of U. P.) decided on 10.12.2021.
2. Case U/S 482/378/407 No. 2261 of 2021 Kunwar Mahendra Pratap Singh @ Chandan Singh Vs. State of U P. and others decided on 18.08.2021.
3. Prem Shankar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2021 (4) RCR (Criminal) 598.
4. Gurinder Singh @ Jindu Vs. State of Punjab reported in LQ/PunjHC/2020/3327.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing for the informant argued that coercive process i.e. proclamation has been issued against the applicant. He is not co-operating with the Investigating Officer and avoiding to appear before him. Due procedure prescribed for issuance of coercive process has been followed in the matter. Since the applicant is not co-operating with the Investigating Officer, he is not entitled to be allowed on anticipatory bail. It was further argued that applicant and other co- accused entered into the house of the informant and extended threat to deter from pursuing the case crime no. 379 of 2020 under Sections 376-B, 342, 406 IPC and they also pressurize the informant to give affidavit in support of the applicant and other co- accused.
Learned counsel appearing for the informant placed reliance on the following case laws :
1. Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 SCC 730.
I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire record including the case laws relied upon by the parties.
In this matter, as is evident from the record, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant. Allegation against the applicant is that applicant and other co-accused entered into the house of the informant and threatened her for filing affidavit in favour of the accused person in case crime no. 379 of 2020. While deciding the anticipatory bail application, Court will take into consideration the nature of allegation and seriousness of the offences. In the present matter, allegation against the applicant and other co-accused is that applicant entered into the house of the informant and abused her extending threat to file affidavit in favour of the accused persons in case crime no. 379 of 2020. If such is the position then looking to the nature of the allegations levelled against the applicant, court is of the opinion that applicant cannot be extended in this matter on anticipatory bail. Prayer made by the applicant is not liable to be accepted.
Application is rejected. Order Date :- 20.12.2021 Sachdeva Digitally signed by OM PRAKASH Date: 2021.12.21 15:29:04 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad