Teekam Singh And Others vs State Of U.P.
2015 Latest Caselaw 4363 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

									A.F.R
 
Court No. - 10
 
Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 292589 of 2012
 
In
 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5752 of 2011
 

 
Appellant :- Teekam Singh And Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Alok Sharma,Amit Misra,Radheyshyam Shukla,Sheshadri Trivedi,Viresh Misra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,S.K. Mishra,Saurabh Gour
 

 
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

This is an application filed by the informant for cancellation of bail granted in favour of appellants Teekam Singh, Jagveer, Ashu and Sanju in the appeal under order dated 20.12.2011.

What has been stated before us is that the bail application of Teekam Singh, Jagveer, Ashu and Sanju in the present appeal came up for consideration before the Court on 20.12.2011. On the same day, learned A.G.A. had filed a counter affidavit in the shape of objections to the grant of bail before the Court. In paragraph no. 7 of the counter affidavit, so filed, details of the criminal cases, which were registered against the accused-appellants, were specifically disclosed, which are as follows:

"CRIMINAL HISTORY OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT NO. 1, TEEKAM SINGH

(I) Case crime no. 782 of 2008, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 I.P.C. and 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr.

(II) NCR No. 5 of 2011, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr.

CRIMINAL HISTORY OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT NO. 2, JAGVEER

(I) Case crime no. 502 of 2007, under Sections 323, 324, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr.

(II) Case crime no. 782 of 2008, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 I.P.C. and 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr.

(III) Case crime no. 288 of 2009, under Sections 3(1) of U.P. Goonda Act, Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr.

(IV) NCR No. 5 of 2011, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr.

CRIMINAL HISTORY OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT NO. 3, ASHU

(I) Case crime no. 908 of 2007, under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr.

(II) Case crime no. 940 of 2007, under Sections 25 Arms Act, Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr.

(III) Case crime no. 782 of 2008, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 I.P.C. and 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr.

(IV) NCR No. 5 of 2011, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr.

CRIMINAL HISTORY OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT NO. 4, SANJU

(I) Case crime no. 332 of 2007, under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr.

(II) Case crime no. 502 of 2007, under Sections 323, 324, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr.

(III) Case crime no. 289 of 2009, under Sections 3(1) of U.P. Goonda Act, Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr.

(IV) Case crime no. 782 of 2008, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 I.P.C. and 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr.

(V) NCR No. 5 of 2011, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr."

It is stated that from the record itself, it is apparent that neither any time was prayed for by the learned counsel for the appellants to rebut the allegations made in the counter affidavit nor the High Court had granted any such time.

It is further apparent from the record that the High Court while granting the bail has not even taken notice of the criminal antecedents of the appellants as were disclosed in the counter affidavit filed by the State. Because of such non consideration of the material facts including the criminal antecedents of the accused-appellants, the order granting bail to the appellants is rendered perverse in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P. And Another in Criminal Appeal No. 2587 of 2014 and in the other judgement by the same name i.e. Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P. And Another passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1272 of 2015 on 16.12.2014 and 29.09.2015.

The Apex Court has used strongest possible words in the matter of non consideration of the criminal antecedents of a convicted accused-appellant while granting bail by the High Court and it has been held that the order granting bail without considering the relevant facts as disclosed in the objections including criminal history is unjustified, illegal and perverse.

It has also been held that the cases where there is abuse of the bail granted because of subsequent criminal acts etc. falls in a different category vis-a-vis a case where the bail is granted without considering the relevant factors. The Apex Court has held in the later case the justification and soundness of the order of the Court is to be seen.

We, in the facts of the case for example find that in so far as the aforesaid appellant Teekam Singh in the present appeal is concerned, he is alleged to have committed an offence and was convicted in N.C.R. No. 5 of 2011, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr. Having regard to the year of offence as disclosed from the non cognizable report the question arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the appellants have committed the said offence while he was on bail in S.T. No. 51 of 2009 (giving rise to the present appeal) or not.

Similarly other accused-appellants are also having a criminal history which has already been elaborated in the preceding paragraphs, which aspect ought to have been considered by the Court while granting bail to the accused-appellants.

We may record that Section 389 of Cr.P.C., which provides for time being granted to the State to file objections to the bail application filed in a pending appeal, has been held to be mandatory by the full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Arimardan Vs. State of U.P.; [2011 (4) ADJ 569 (FB)] as well as by the Apex Court in the case of Atul Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. And Another; 2014 CJ(SC) 1139. The logical conclusion is that if objections have filed by the State then for the complete meaningful exercise (having regard to the statutory provision) the minimum required is that while granting bail in a pending appeal, the Court shall consider the objections so filed by the State otherwise the aforesaid mandatory provision would be rendered nugatory.

We find that the appellants did not chose to rebut the allegations as made in the counter affidavit and that the High Court did not even think it proper to even note the criminal antecedents of the appellants as mentioned in the counter affidavit which may show any application of mind to the facts so disclosed in the objections.

For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that the order granting bail to the appeal cannot be legally sustained.

The bail granted to the appellants under order dated 20.12.2011 is hereby cancelled. Let all the appellants namely Teekam Singh, Jagveer, Ashu and Sanju be taken into custody immediately.

Learned counsel for the appellants is granted two weeks time to rebut the allegations made in the counter affidavit and to explain their conduct with reference to what has been referred to above. The bail application shall be considered afresh after the reply is filed by him.

The appeal shall be listed again on 14.12.2015.

Order Date :- 20.11.2015

Sandeep