IMPORTANT POINT
The court underscored the significance of personal liberty and adherence to legal procedures in the context of anticipatory bail applications.

JUDGMENT :

(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) :

This Application has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of Anticipatory Bail under Section 285 and Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in connection with the First Information Report No. 86 of 2022, registered at police station Kotwali Dehradun, District Dehradun.

2. As per the First Information Report dated 10.02.2022, on 06.01.2022, at around 4 a.m., with intention to cause death, the applicant put explosive substance in a bottle, set it on fire and threw it at the informant’s house.

3. The First Information Report was registered under Section 285 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was added during the course of the investigation.

4. Heard Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the respondents and Ms. Poonam, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, learned counsel for the informant.

5. Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate, contended that an Anticipatory Bail Application was filed by the applicant before the Sessions Judge, Dehradun. On 20.06.2022, interim protection was granted by the In-charge Sessions Judge, Dehradun in the said Anticipatory Bail Application (No. 984 of 2022). Learned counsel for the State had submitted in the said Anticipatory Bail Application (No. 984 of 2022) that non-bailable warrant and process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have already been issued, therefore, the said Anticipatory Bail Application was rejected on 30.06.2022.

6. Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. Non-bailable warrant was issued against him without issuing a bailable warrant, and, the proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was never published.

7. Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate, further submitted that the applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. He is a permanent resident of District Dehradun, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding, and, charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

8. Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant have opposed the Anticipatory Bail Application. However, learned counsel for the State, on instructions, submitted that the proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was never published.

9. Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant- Inderjeet Singh is directed to be released on Anticipatory Bail, in the event of his arrest, on furnishing his personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount on the following conditions:-

(i) Applicant shall attend the Trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

(ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case.

(iii) Applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Trial Court.

11. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the concerned authority will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

12. Anticipatory Bail Application (No. 149 of 2022) stands disposed of accordingly.