Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 19847 of 2021 Applicant :- Vimaldhar Dubey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Dubey,Ramesh Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Abhishek Kumar Yadav, Advocate, on behalf of the opposite party no.2 is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhishek Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Sri Abhishek Singh, 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, Vimaldhar Dubey seeking bail in Case Crime No.194 of 2021, under Sections 147, 149,452, 323, 504, 506, 307, 511, 392, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Jaitpur, District Varanasi, till conclusion of trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no concerned with the case, he has been falsely implicated in the case. In First Information Report, date of incident has not mentioned anywhere. The applicant was not present on the spot. The applicant is being blackmailed by the informant by lodging present First Information Report.
Learned counsel for the informant submits that against the applicant proceedings under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been initiated and he has placed reliance upon Para-10 of the Apex Court Judgement in Criminal Appeal No.1331 of 2012 Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.1961 of 2012, decided on 31.08.2012 in which it has been held that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code is not entitled the relief of anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submits that the applicant is not participating in the interrogation proceeding and case of tempering the witness is made out.
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 applicants on bail.
The anticipatory bail application is accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 21.12.2021 SKD