Nasir Rana vs. State Of U.P.

Facts

The applicant, Nasir Rana, sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 357 of 2024, registered at Police Station Civil Line, District Muzaffarnagar. The FIR alleged that the applicant, along with others, intercepted and misbehaved with a team from the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Meerut Zonal Unit, during a raid on Rana Steel Company. The applicant's counsel argued that he is innocent, falsely implicated, not named in the FIR, and is a press reporter with no connection to the alleged offense. He also claimed the applicant has no prior criminal history and fears imminent arrest. The State, through the learned Additional Government Advocate, opposed the bail, citing direct allegations and the statement of Shreya Gupta, Deputy Director in GST, DGGI, indicating a prima facie offense. The applicant's alleged role was to stop the raid team and misbehave with them, obstructing the investigation.

Held

The Court rejected the anticipatory bail application of the applicant, Nasir Rana. The Court held that the object of anticipatory bail is to prevent harassment and humiliation for personal vendetta. It reiterated that the discretionary power to grant or refuse anticipatory bail must be exercised carefully, considering various factors like the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the accused, and the impact of granting bail. In this case, the Court found that the applicant's involvement in intercepting and misbehaving with the DGGI raid team, thereby obstructing fair investigation, was prima facie established from statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS. Consequently, the Court found no good ground to grant anticipatory bail and deemed no interference warranted. The application was accordingly rejected.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, considering the allegations of obstruction and misbehavior with a DGGI raid team? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant contended that he is innocent, falsely implicated with ulterior motives, and not named in the FIR. He asserted his role as a press reporter, implying no involvement in the alleged offense, and highlighted his lack of criminal antecedents. He expressed apprehension of imminent arrest and assured cooperation with the investigation if released on bail. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State argued that direct allegations exist against the applicant, supported by the statement of a Deputy Director in GST, DGGI. They submitted that the applicant's actions, including stopping the raid team and misbehaving with them, constitute a prima facie offense, making him disentitled to any indulgence from the Court. They urged the rejection of the anticipatory bail application.