Abdul Rehman vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Ravindra Maithani, J

The challenge in this petition is made to the order dated 05.03.2022 passed in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 317 of 2022 as well as the order dated 06.04.2022 passed by the court in the same anticipatory bail application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In fact, the petitioner moved an anticipatory bail application, which was accepted with certain conditions, including furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 15,00,000/-. Subsequent to it, the petitioner moved another application for modification of the anticipatory bail order, particularly the condition of furnishing the bank guarantee, on the ground that the petitioner is not able to furnish the bank guarantee. But, that application was rejected by order dated 06.04.2022. The court granted fifteen days more time to furnish the bank guarantee. These orders are impugned.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in fact, the condition imposed in the anticipatory bail order is much harsh. The petitioner is not in a position to furnish the bank guarantee. The purpose of anticipatory bail would frustrate, if the order dated 05.03.2022 is not modified. Reference has been made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumit Mehta v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi (Criminal Appeal No. 1436 of 2013). In para 12 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:-

“12. While exercising power under Section 438 of the Code, the Court is duty bound to strike a balance between the individuals right to personal freedom and the right of the investigation of the police. For the same, while granting relief under Section 438(1), appropriate conditions can be imposed under Section 438(2) so as to ensure an uninterrupted investigation. The object of putting such conditions should be to avoid the possibility of the person hampering the investigation. Thus, any condition, which has no reference to the fairness or propriety of the investigation or trial, cannot be countenanced as permissible under the law. So, the discretion of the Court while imposing conditions must be exercised with utmost restraint.”

Undoubtedly, freedom of an individual is one of the cherished rights under the Constitution, but there are reasonable restrictions on it. Anticipatory bail application balances, on the one hand, personal liberty of an individual and, on the other hand, societal interests, particularly the right of the Investigating Officer to interrogate or investigate the matter.

The Court would have examined the condition for furnishing the bank guarantee, but the impugned order dated 05.03.2022 reveals that, in fact, on behalf of the petitioner, a statement was given before the court that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish the bank guarantee of Rs. 15,00,000/-. In para 7, last line of the impugned order dated 05.03.2022, the court observed that since the petitioner is ready to furnish bank guarantee of Rs. 15,00,000/-, his anticipatory bail application may be allowed. The court did not impose the condition of furnishing bank guarantee on the petitioner. It was an offer given by the petitioner and considering that, the anticipatory bail application was allowed. There appears no reason to modify that order. The court below, by the subsequent order dated 06.04.2022, granted further fifteen days’ time. These orders may not be interfered with. They are in accordance with law.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that, at least, some more time may be granted to the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee.

The petitioner is at liberty to furnish the bank guarantee within four weeks from today. In case, the bank guarantee is not furnished within the stipulated time, the anticipatory bail order passed by the court below shall become inoperative automatically.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Let a certified copy of this order be issued today itself on payment of usual charges.