Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicants Sani Yadav @ Balram Singh, Jagdeesh Saroj @ Jagdeesh Kumar and Haggu @ Indrajeet Kumar in Case Crime No. 105 of 2021, under sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, P.S.- Saini, District - Kaushambi.
The first information report version is that on the date of incident some incident took place in which Chandrabhan and Kamal Singh have sustained injuries. Some notorious persons like Shivbabu @ Bhutani Pasi and others with 60-70 other persons came on the place of incident with lathi, danda and deadly weapons in their hands and started jamming on the national highway and they also started damaging the Government vehicles and obstructed the private vehicles and ambulances. the accused persons also misbehaved to the police authorities deployed their for maintaining the law and order situation.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants had no concerned with the said incident and they have been falsely implicated. The applicants have shops around the place of incident. It is further submitted that the applicants are prepared to furnish sureties and bonds, there is no possibility of their either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the evidence.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and has submitted that the act of the applicant is not such that benefit of anticipatory bail can be given to them.
Considered the submissions of both the sides. The applicants are named in the first information report and the accusation against them is that they led a jam on the national highway, damaged the Government vehicles, prevented the police authorities from discharging their official functioning and prolonged the jamming which caused inconvenience for the persons going on their vehicles and obstructed the smooth mobility of the ambulances and in such kind of situation, there appears to be no reason for giving the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicants. It is pertinent to mention that the anticipatory bail is not a substitute of a regular bail and for it, some extraordinary circumstances are required in comparison to regular bail. There should be some special reason for taking recourse of the provisions of anticipatory bail. There must also be a threat of arrest of the accused. The applicants have not been able to show any real threat of arrest or any extraordinary circumstances, as such, I do not find any ground for giving benefit of anticipatory bail, hence the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicants is rejected.
A direction is, however, given to the court below that in case, applicants surrender and give bail application, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously and preferably on the same day in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 18.8.2021 sailesh