Allahabad High Court
Smt. Sangeeta Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 23 February, 2021
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 78
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3787 of 2021
Applicant :- Smt. Sangeeta Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
Vide order dated 02.04.2018, a coordinate Bench of this Court has passed the order in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5275 of 2018 (Prashant Vishnoi vs. State of U.P.), which reads as under:
"Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.
Heard Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri R.C.Upadhyay alongwith Sri Mohd. Farooq, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Zafeer Ahmad, leaned AGA appearing for the State.
It is alleged that on 29.4.2017 police raided the house of the applicant and recovered several items such as head, horn, skin and other materials of wild animals and meat. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the statement of the co-accused Bablu is not admissible in the eyes of law because he is an accused. Another co-accused Amit Goel has been bailed out vide order dated 24.7.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Meerut.
Prosecution has been launched against the applicant under sections 9. 44. 49-A. 49-B, 50 & 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act., 1972. It is further averred by the learned counsel for the applicant that under section 9 of the Act hunting of Wild Life Animal is specified in schedule 1, 2, 3 & 4. In this respect he submitted that the applicant never indulged in hunting of any schedule animal as scheduled in the said Act. Hence, no case is made out under Section 9 of the Act. Further, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no evidence against the applicant to this effect that he indulged in carrying of anything contrary to the scheduled specified in the said Act.
Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2000)10 SCC 305 & Megha Singh Vs. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 709.
It is further averred by the learned counsel for the applicant that the entire investigation is void, contrary to law and suffers from incurable illegalities. In this respect he submitted that the seizure memo has been prepared by one Sanjeev Kumar, Forest Officer, who is complainant/author of the FIR and also investigating officer of the present case. The said Sanjeev Kumar has examined and investigated the entire case and all the witnesses, who are mainly forest officials as well as Nidhi Bishnoi wife of the applicant, who is also signatory of the seizure memo. He further submitted that the entire investigation has been conducted by one Sanjeev Kumar, who is Forest Officer and the charge sheet has been submitted by him. The applicant carries no previous criminal antecedent and the offence is triable by the Magistrate. Further submission is that there is no independent witness and the proceeding has been initiated under Forest Act and not under Wild Life Animal Act.
It is next contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the father of the applicant Col.(R) Devendra Kumar has also been released on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4681 of 2018 vide order dated 7.2.2018, copy of which has been produced by the applicant's counsel which is taken on record.Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 6.6.2017.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant and has admitted that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent.
Considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge and reformative theory of punishment, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.However, the applicant before his release will deposit Rs.10.00 lacs in the name of court concerned, to be paid to the complainant, if he has occasioned wrongful loss.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case let the applicant Prashant Vishnoi involved in Case Crime No.6 of 2017, under Sections 9. 44. 49-A. 49-B, 50 & 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act., 1972, Police Station Civil Lines,District Meeerut be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. The applicant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.
2. He will not tamper with the witnesses.
3. He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.
It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted."
In compliance of the above order, the applicant, being relative of Prashant Vishnoi, has deposited Rs.10 lacs as Fixed Deposit before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the grievance of the applicant is that the applicant wants to withdraw the Fixed Deposit amount of Rs.10 lacs, which was deposited in compliance of order dated 02.04.2018. In this regard, the applicant has moved an application dated 15.10.2020 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Meerut, which is still pending. He further submits the application of the applicant may be directed to decide expeditiously.
Considering the facts of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the applicant's case, this application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of with a direction to the court below to decide the aforesaid application in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 23.2.2021/Ajeet
