The court established that anticipatory bail should be granted based on the seriousness of accusations, the applicant's antecedents, and the potential for tampering with evidence.

JUDGMENT

Siddharth, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application has been moved by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 1137 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 336, 452, 188, 427, 120B, 153A, 295A, 109 IPC, Section 3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Kotwali City, District Bijnor with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is not named in the FIR. In the FIR, it has been alleged that on 02.12.2019 at about 3.00 PM, a mob comprising about 250-300 persons, armed with lathi sticks and rods, have damaged vehicles lying parked at the side of the road and he has also assaulted the public persons. Learned counsel submitted that in fact Case Crime No. 1132 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 188, 307, 323, 332, 336, 353, 427, 436, 120B, 153A, 295A, 109 IPC, Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Section 3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, Police Station-Kotwali City, District-Bijnor, was registered on 20.12.2019 regarding protests being made against Citizen Amendment Act and NRC and on the basis of the statement of some co-accused persons, the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It has further been submitted that applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and that the cases shown against him were registered subsequently. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and argued that during investigation, involvement of applicant was found and that he has been identified through CCTV footage.

5. The parameters for granting anticipatory bail have been discussed in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

"112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:

"(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;

(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;

(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;

(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences;

(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;

(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people;

(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over-implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;

(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;

(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehensio