The judgment emphasizes the importance of fair, just, and reasonable procedures for depriving a person of liberty, the necessity of granting anticipatory bail in certain circumstances, and the balance in favor of the investigating agency for free, fair, and full investigation.

ORDER :

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.

1. The locus classicus on the concept of “anticipatory bail” vis-à-vis the concern for personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is the Constitutional Bench judgment in re: Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565. The said judgment and the comparatively recent rendition of the Supreme Court in re: (2011) 1 SCC 694 were relied upon by Mr. A. K. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Advocate for the Applicant who apprehends imminent arrest in view of the lodgment of First Information Report (FIR) No.0004 dated 16.03.2019 at the office of the Crime Branch (CID), Police Headquarter, Gangtok for alleged offences committed by unknown person under Section 419, 468, 471, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as well as Section 66 (C) and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act).

2. Emphasizing the need to preserve the personal liberty of the Applicant the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Applicant was not involved in any crime for which punishment prescribed was death or imprisonment for life. He pointed out the order dated 04.06.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, East Sikkim and submitted that the co-accused had already been granted regular bail. He would draw this Courts attention to a certificate issued by Katihar Medical College, Bihar dated 25.05.2019 and emphasise that he was a sick person. The learned Senior Counsel stressed that the Applicant hails from a respectable family. His father Dr. Saibal Gupta is presently a Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine, Katihar Medical College, Bihar and also its Medical Superintendent and Vice Principal. The Applicant himself is a Doctor by profession and running a Nursing Home at Malbazar, Jalpaiguri, West Bengal. The Applicant’s mother works in a school in Katihar and his wife is also a medical graduate associated with running the Nursing Home with her husband. The learned Senior Counsel drew the attention of this Court to the order dated 30.05.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Sikkim at Gangtok in Criminal Misc. Case (Bail) No. 20 of 2019. This was on an application for anticipatory bail filed by the Applicant in anticipation of his arrest for the same FIR for which, after its rejection, the Applicant seeks protection from this Court. One of the main contentions, much emphasised by the learned Senior Counsel, is that the Applicant was not implicated in the FIR.

3. The State is being represented from the date of the first hearing itself. Mr. S.K. Chettri, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondent vehemently objected to the grant of anticipatory bail to the Applicant. It was submitted that substantial materials have been collected which directly implicate the Applicant. The said materials were placed before this Court for its perusal along with the case diary. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the Petitioner is also involved in yet another case for which another FIR bearing no. 201/2018 dated 21.09.2018 (previous FIR) under Section 419 IPC has been registered in the Sadar Thana, East District at Gangtok against the Applicant. It was pointed out that the previous FIR also reflects identical modus operandi as involved in the present FIR for defrauding aspirants for medical seats in Sikkim Manipal Institute of Medical Sciences (SMIMS). It was stated that although attempts have been made to arrest the Applicant he has been evading it. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgment of this Court in re: Susanta Kumar Sahoo v. State of Sikkim, (2014) SCC OnLine Sikk. 68 and submitted that an absconder is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

4. As held by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in re: Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra) Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) which is concerned with personal liberty cannot be whittled down by reading restrictions a