Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51603 of 2019 Applicant :- Suresh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.
Sri R.S. Shukla, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the first informant-opposite party, which is also taken on record.
This anticipatory bail application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking the bail of applicant namely, Suresh Kumar in the event of his arrest in Case Crime No. 0668 of 2019, under Sections 147, 307, 394, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Colonelganj, District Prayagraj ( Allahabad).
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and the first informant is a counsel practising in the District Courts who has falsely manufactured the allegations and the F.I.R. against the applicant and, therefore, he may be released on anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the applicant has also tried to submit that because of the first informant being the counsel he is directly approaching the High Court.
Heard learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing for the first informant.
It was emphasized on behalf of the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant that the applicant is having a long criminal history and is having not less than 10 cases registered against him under several offences which includes cases under Sections 394, 307 and 395 I.P.C. One of the accused persons was arrested on spot who is said to have disclosed on spot after being apprehended that he was a hired assassin and was given Rs. 3 lakhs to eliminate the first informant. One of the apprehended accused persons was handed over to the police also which affirms the truthfulness of the prosecution story. Further submission is that the chequered history or the criminal antecedents of accused are sufficient to indicate that the accused is a habitual offender and in case he is released on bail, under the coercive influence of his criminality it will be difficult for the witnesses to depose independently without fear. It is further submitted that in all likelihood the release of the accused shall impair the prospects of a fair trial. It is next submitted that it is also very obvious that a person of this criminal background is also very likely to indulge himself in the activities which shall be detrimental to the society at large. Further submission is that the delinquents of such nature wield enormous criminal clout which in consequence very obviously affects a free trial. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused should not be released on bail. Learned A.G.A. also relied upon the Apex Court decision Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Appeal No.1272 of 2015 decided on 29.9.2015 to emphasise upon the relevance of criminal history in matters of bail.
The perusal of aforesaid case law reveals that a very strict view against the accused on the point of bail has been adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the reason of his having a shady past blemished with criminal antecedents.
Looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case and specially keeping in view the long criminal history of the applicant, this Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for anticipatory bail. Therefore, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant is rejected.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 CPP/-