SANATAN PANDEY Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-2021-10-128
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on October 07,2021

Sanatan Pandey Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

KHALID ANWAR VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(ALL)-2023-9-18] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M.R.SHAH,J. - (1.)Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 24.06.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail No.6648 of 2021 by which the High Court has refused the prayer of the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail, the original accused has preferred the present Special Leave Petition.
(2.)We have heard Shri Shyam Divan, Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
(3.)Shri Shyam Divan, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has vehemently submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. It is submitted that in this case the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed and therefore, it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
3.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the petitioner is charged for the offences punishable under Ss. 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 308, 504 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. The incident is of 05.03.2017. Even the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner and other co-accused as far as back on 20.11.2018. Earlier the petitioner moved an application before the High Court to quash the charge-sheet, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which came to be dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 10.12.2019. However, though not permissible the High Court vide order dated 10.12.2019 directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the Court within 30 days and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and for a period of 30 days no coercive steps can be taken against the accused in the aforesaid case. Despite the same and having taken the benefit of the order dated 10.12.2019, the petitioner did not surrender and apply for regular bail. That thereafter non-bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant and even the proceedings under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. has been initiated. Thus, it has been found that the petitioner is continuously absconding and not available at home. The submission on behalf of the petitioner that initially he was not named as accused in the FIR is concerned, the same has been dealt with by the Learned trial Court and the Learned trial Court has observed that even in the first FIR one person was shown as unknown. Thus, from the aforesaid it is found that there is a prima facie case found against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences and even the charge-sheet has been filed and the petitioner is found to be absconding. Therefore, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court shall not come to the rescue or help the accused who is not cooperating the investigating agency and absconding and against whom not only nonbailable warrant has been issued but also the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued.

In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. Hence, the application in Crl. Mic. Anticipatory Bail Application No.6648 of 2021 stands dismissed.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.