Anticipatory bail can be granted despite a co-accused receiving regular bail; courts must safeguard liberty while ensuring due process.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Vidyarthi, J.

1. Heard Shri Bal Keshwar Srivastava and Shri Trideep Narayan Pandey, the learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Alok Kumar Tiwari, the AGA for the State.

2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.34 of 2025 under Sections 110, 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 109, 103(1), 118(1) of B.N.S. registered at Police Station- Kudwar, District- Sultanpur.

3. The learned AGA has raised a preliminary objection that a co-accused person has been granted a regular bail by the Session Judge and, therefore, the applicant should also file an application for regular bail.

4. Replying to the aforesaid preliminary objection, the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Sushila Aggrawal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020 (5) SCC 1 .

5. In Satender Kumar Antil (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that :-

"93. The rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice.

94. Criminal courts in general with the trial court in particular are the guardian angels of liberty. Liberty, as embedded in the Code, has to be preserved, protected, and enforced by the criminal courts. Any conscious failure by the criminal courts would constitute an affront to liberty. It is the pious duty of the criminal court to zealously guard and keep a consistent vision in safeguarding the constitutional values and ethos. A criminal court must uphold the constitutional thrust with responsibility mandated on them by acting akin to a high priest.

95. This Court in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra [Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 2 SCC 427 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 834] , has observed that : (SCC pp. 471-72, para 67)

“67. Human liberty is a precious constitutional value, which is undoubtedly subject to regulation by validly enacted legislation. As such, the citizen is subject to the edicts of criminal law and procedure. Section 482 recognises the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as are necessary to give effect to the provisions of CrPC ‘or prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice’. Decisions of this Court require the High Courts, in exercising the jurisdiction entrusted to them under Section 482, to act with circumspection. In emphasising that the High Court must exercise this power with a sense of restraint, the decisions of this Court are founded on the basic principle that the due enforcement of criminal law should not be obstructed by the accused taking recourse to artifices and strategies. The public interest in ensuring the due investigation of crime is protected by ensuring that the inherent power of the High Court is exercised with caution. That indeed is one—and a significant—end of the spectrum. The other end of the spectrum is equally important : the recognition by Section 482 of the power inhering in the High Court to prevent the abuse of process or to