Ashok Kumar Bhadauriya (Ashok ... vs State Of U.P. Thru S.P. Central ...
2019 Latest Caselaw 530 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 15
 

 
Case :- BAIL No. - 7295 of 2018
 

 
Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Bhadauriya (Ashok Singh Bhadauriya)
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru S.P. Central Bureau Of Investigation/Acb
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Purnendu Chakravarty,Kapil Misra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Bireshwar Nath
 

 
Hon'ble Rang Nath Pandey,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This bail application has been preferred by the accused-applicant Ashok Kumar Bhadauriya, who is involved in Case No. 43625 of 2018 (State of U.P. through C.B.I. Vs. Ashok Singh Bhadauria & others) arising out of Case Crime No. RC - 006 2018 S 0009, under Section 120-B read with Sections 166, 167, 193, 201, 218 I.P.C. and 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station C.B.I./A.C.B., Lucknow, District Lucknow.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. has been registered by C.B.I. on 12.04.2018 and the applicant has been arrested under Sections 120-B, 193, 201, 218 I.P.C. and Section 3/25 Arms Act by the C.B.I. and on 13.07.2018 C.B.I. has filed charge sheet against the applicant along with other accused under Section 120-B read with Sections 166, 167, 193, 201, 218 I.P.C. and Section 3/25 Arms Act. It is further contended that Sections 166, 167, 193, 201, 218 I.P.C. are bailable offence and Section 120-B I.P.C. would be bailable accordingly as offence which is subject of conspiracy and is a bailable offence. He next submitted that Section 3/25 Arms Act has been wrongly inflicted against the applicant, no offence is made out under this Section against the applicant. There is no recovery of any weapon or cartridge from the applicant neither he has contravened Section 3/25 Arms Act. In the charge sheet filed by the C.B.I., the applicant has been charged for substantive offence under that Sections only and the charge under Section 120-B I.P.C. for criminal conspiracy has been inflicted for the offence under that Sections as mentioned above. The substantive offence under Section 3/25 Arms Act has been inflicted in the charge sheet for Shailendra Singh @ Tinku Singh along with Section 201 I.P.C. As such Section 3/25 of the Arms Act is not made out against the applicant in this case. The applicant has not committed any offence for disobeying a directions of law with intent to cause injury to any person under Section 166 I.P.C. and the applicant has not committed any offence under Section 167 I.P.C. for framing an incorrect documents with intent to cause injury and also the applicant has not committed any offence under Section 193 I.P.C. for giving or fabricating false evidence in a judicial proceedings and in other case. The applicant has not committed any offence for causing disappearance of an evidence of a offence committed or giving any false information touching it to screen offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C. and the applicant has not committed any offence under Section 218 I.P.C. as public servant framing the incorrect record or writing with intent to save persons from punishment or property from forfeiture.

Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the brief facts of the case is that the applicant was posted at Police Station Makhi, District Unnao from 24.12.2017 to 09.04.2018 on the post of Station Officer. Between these dates i.e. on 03.04.2018 one person namely Tinku Singh lodged F.I.R. at Crime No. 89 of 2018, according to F.I.R., one person namely Suman Singh @ Shashi Pratap Singh had called complainant Tinku Singh on mobile phone and informed him to come there because one person namely Pappu @ Surendra Singh was abusing him then complainant Tinku Singh and other persons went there and they caught Pappu @ Surendra Singh along with armed i.e. Tamancha and four cartridges and they took him to the police station. Accused Pappu @ Surendra Singh was arrested and recovery memo regarding arm and cartridges was prepared by the concerned police personnel. He further submitted that the applicant being Station Officer has committed no offence in the eye of law. The alleged charges leveled in the F.I.R. are not made out against the applicant because he is the law abiding person and has served the police force of this State to the utmost sincerity and integrity and he is being wrongly implicated in this case. The applicant was informed to the ` Unnao about the case of Pappu @ Surendra Singh at the same very time and his judicial custody also. On the next date of this incident i.e. 04.04.2018, Ms. Asha Devi has also lodged F.I.R. in the cross-version of this incident and the investigation handed over to the C.B.I. and during investigation C.B.I. has examined the lady constable but in her statement she stated that Station Officer Ashok Kumar Bhadauriya told her to register the F.I.R. given by the informant Ms. Asha Devi and C.B.I. has received the statements from the witnesses that applicant has not caused any hindrance for lodging of the F.I.R. and also during investigation Ms. Asha Devi has told to C.B.I. that applicant has never caused any hindrance or impediments and also said that during night of 3/4 April, 2018, she did not file any complaint at the concerned Police Station. He next submitted that on the basis of C.D.R., no interference could be drawn regarding the commission of any offence by the applicant. The C.B.I. has not filed the correct C.D.R. details and has skipped the relevant calls of Senior Police Officer. The applicant is in jail since 17.05.2018 and his second bail application has been rejected by the Court. He has no previous criminal history and the charge sheet has already been filed by the C.B.I., hence, there is no chance for tampering with evidence or absconding as such the applicant deserves to be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the opposite party opposed the prayer for bail and contended that the case are that Smt. Asha Singh w/o Surendra Singh had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, POCSO Act, Unnao on 12.02.2018 alleged that one Kuldeep Singh Sengar raped her minor daughter on 04.06.2017, this matter was fixed on 03.04.2018 for hearing in the Court and Pappu Singh @ Surendra Singh along with his co-worker came from Delhi and met with his wife Ms. Asha Singh and attend the Court. After attending the Court they gone to home and on the way the accused Shashi Pratap Singh @ Suman Singh met them and some altercations started between them on the issue of that case as stated above. On the information of Suman Singh, some persons arrival there and on that place, fight took place between them. Thereafter, Tinku Singh has falsely projecting himself as complainant and submitted a complaint. He further submitted that in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the bail application need no comment being matter of records. However, in furtherance of criminal conspiracy hatched amongst accused persons, Tinku Singh @ Shailendra Singh by falsely projecting himself as complainant and submitted a complaint. And in reply to the contents of Paragrpah 21 of the bail application, it is submitted that further investigation is still continued. It is respectfully submitted that the bail application of the aforesaid applicant may be rejected in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned above.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and going through the record, without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 

Let applicant Ashok Kumar Bhadauriya, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

However, the trial Court is expected to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within six months/without unreasonable delay and unnecessary adjournment.

Order Date :- 06 . 03 .2019

M/A.