1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicant for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.601 of 2019, under Sections 406, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Rohaniya, District Varanasi, during the pendency of the trial.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Instant F.I.R. has been lodged with malicious intention. It is a civil nature dispute. No offence is made out against the applicant. The charge sheet has been submitted in the year 2019 and thereafter the applicant has not received notice with regard to summoning. It is next submitted that the applicant's case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the applicant is apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the trial proceedings.
4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that prima facie offence against the applicant is made out. The charge sheet has been submitted in the year 2019. The applicant has deliberately avoided the court proceedings.The applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected.
5. In Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2018) 13 SCC 813, the Supreme Court has held that the satisfaction of the court for granting protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is different from the one under Section 439 Cr.P.C. while considering regular bail. In Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs. State of Haryana and another (2023) 8 SCC 181, the Apex Court has opined that the relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest.
6. Considered the argument raised by counsel for the applicant and perused the record. No interference is warranted by this Court as the applicant is not cooperating with the trial proceedings.
7. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected.
8. However, if the applicant surrenders before the concerned court within two weeks from today and applies for regular bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922.
9. For the period of two weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the court below, whichever is earlier, non bailable warrant issued against the applicant, shall be kept in abeyance.