ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 307, 341, 354(B), 448, 380, 504 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that on 30.03.2021, accused Ram Prasad Yadav who is her elder brother-in-law misbehaved with her by cracking dirty jokes which was objected, on which Ram Prasad Yadav caught her by hair and dashed her on the ground and tore her clothes, it is further alleged that on hulla, the minor niece of the informant came to save her when all the accused persons started misbehaving with her and even tore her clothes and assaulted her, further alleges that her son Rohit also came to save her when Mahesh assaulted him by rod leading to fracture of hand, Mantun assaulted the informant by rod hitting on her hand and the petitioner also assaulted the informant by rod on her hand leading to fracture, further alleges that the accused persons also disrobed her.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, it is next submitted that though it is alleged in the F.I.R. that the petitioner assaulted her by an iron rod causing fracture on the left hand but from perusal of the F.I.R. it would manifest that the F.I.R. was instituted on 31.03.2021 at 11:00 am when from perusal of the paragraph ‘28’ of the case diary it would manifest that the informant was under treatment at D.M.C.H. and her fardbyan was recorded at 12:10 pm in the hospital itself. The learned counsel thus submits that if her fardbyan was recorded at 12:10 pm in the hospital then how come the present F.I.R. came to be instituted at 11:00 am, thus the learned counsel casts as persions on the truthfulness and veracity of the present F.I.R.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the post-mortem report it would manifest that the informant had received injury on both of her hands thus submits that how come she went to the police station and gave a written application with her signature, this further creates doubt with regard to the veracity of the allegations as alleged in the F.I.R. learned counsel next submits that the present F.I.R. is a counterblast to Bahadurpur P.S. Case No. 192 of 2021 instituted by one Vikash Kumar Yadav.

6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the allegations as alleged in the F.I.R. gets corroborated by the injury found in the postmortem report, learned A.P.P. further submits that after perusal of case diary it manifests that anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is not maintainable as process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner. Learned A.P.P. in support of his submission relies on the case of Lavesh vs State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 SCC 730 and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma reported in (2014) 2 SCC 171.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner rebuts the submissions of the learned A.P.P. for the State and submits that Right to Life and Personal Liberty is a sacrosanct Fundamental Right as envisaged in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and liberty of a person cannot be curtailed except in accordance with the procedure established by law and definitely not by giving restrictive interpretation of a statute. Learned counsel further submits that Section 438 Cr.P.C. was incorporated in the Cr.P.C. in pursuance of the report of 41st Law Commission, it is further submitted that Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an embodiment of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel next submits that mere abscondence is not the sole criteria to deny the valuable right of personal freedom of an individual more so when the provision of Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. are prov