Amit Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 3116 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 73
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5656 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Amit Pratap Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Mohan,Rajiv Lochan Shukla
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

The lawyers are on strike and have abstained from attending the Court today.

Supplementary affidavit along with application to hear the applicant in person have been filed in the Court today which are taken on record.

Heard Sri Amit Pratap Singh, applicant in person, and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Amit Pratap Singh, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 149 of 2020, under Section- 306 I.P.C., Police Station- Sevrahi, District- Kushinagar, during pendency of trial.

Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

The allegation in the F.I.R is that son of the informant, Rajeev, was friend of Manjeet Sharma, son of Om Prakash Sharma, and Manjeet Sharma had taken some money on loan from him. On 27.07.2000, Rajeev, went to demand his money back from Manjeet Sharma and there he was beaten by Manjeet Sharma, his uncles, Manoj and Jai Prakash, and sister Sanjana. They had beaten him and thereafter, implicated him in a case of sexual harassment. After the case was registered against his son, the applicant took Rs. 8,00,000/- from the aforesaid accused persons for the purpose of compromise. He is blackmailing the informant through social media. When the informant was trying to get his F.I.R registered, his nephew, Vinod, informed him that dead body of his son, Rajeev, is kept in the house of the accused persons and they are trying to hide it. When the informant went there, he found his son lying on the door of the house of the accused persons. Hence, the F.I.R was lodged under Section 302 I.P.C. on 05.08.2020.

The applicant, Amit Pratap Singh, has appeared in person. He has submitted that he has graduated from Allahabad University in the year 1995. Thereafter, he qualified various competitive examinations but could not get finally selected after interview. In 2005, he started a Non-Government Organization (N.G.O.) in the name of "Samavesh" with the object of protecting the civil rights of marginalized persons to ensure their entitlements. The applicant was closely associated with another N.G.O. namely "Transparency International, Common Cause and Election Watch". In 2005, he was a whistle blower against corruption and has absolutely clean record with no case registered against him. He also participated in election of Gram Pradhan and then the first non-cognizable report was registered against him on account of political rivalry. The applicant started participating in business of iron scrap of Indian Railways and Indian Army and got his commercial firm registered namely "Samavesh" with Commercial Tax Department, U.P. From the year 2012 to 2015, he was Private Secretary to Samdong Rinpoche (the Prime Minister of Government of Tibet in exile) in Dharmshala and was associated with Dalai Lama also. In 2015, when world famous project "Maitreyi" was announced to be initiated in Kushinagar, holy place of Nirvana of Buddha, he was deputed as P.R.O. of His Holiness, Dalai Lama. The "Maitreyi" Project was opposed by the local land mafias and the project was ultimately returned back and could not be executed. The applicant has completed his LL.B. from Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University in the year 2018 and has been enrolled in this Court as an advocate on 15.04.2019. He is neither criminal nor an anti-social element.

He has submitted that the recital in the F.I.R against him is absolutely incorrect. Earlier, the deceased, Rajeev Kumar Gupta, son of informant was challaned u/s 151, 107, 116 Cr.P.C. When he was adamant to commit violence against the family of co-accused, Sanjana Sharma, a case was registered against him as Case Crime No. 144 of 2020 u/s 323, 354, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. The aforesaid co-accused, Sanjana Sharma, filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate, Kasia, Kushinagar on 29.07.2020 praying for recording of her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and conducting of her medical examination. On the aforesaid application, the Court directed the Assistant Prosecuting Officer to report and directed the Investigating Officer to appear before the Court on 07.08.2020. Sanjana Sharma was resident of the same village as the applicant and therefore, he had filed his vakalatnama on her behalf before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kasia, Kushinagar. After order dated 29.07.2020 was passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Kasia, Kushinagar and it came in the knowledge of the deceased, Rajeev Kumar Gupta, he committed suicide on 05.08.2020 on account of fear of criminal prosecution. By way of counterblast, the present F.I.R was lodged against the applicant and 7 other co-accused persons on 05.08.2020. The allegations in the F.I.R are absolutely false against all the accused persons including the applicant. The postmortem report of the deceased, Rajeev Kumar Gupta, shows that he died because of hanging and the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. The case which was registered u/s 302 I.P.C. was converted into Section 306 I.P.C. Another cause of implication in the present case is that the applicant filed a Complaint Case No. 275 of 2016 against Sanjeev Gupta, son of informant and brother of deceased Rajeev Gupta and consumer forum passed an order in favour of applicant directing Sanjeev Gupta to make payment of Rs. 38,000/- with interest, Rs. 6,000/- towards economic loss and Rs. 2,500/- as expenses of the case.

The applicant filed a Public Interest Litigation No. 1538 of 2019 before this Court against the persons who had encroached upon the public pathway. In the aforesaid P.I.L, the informant filed an application for impleadment. Affidavit was filed in the aforesaid P.I.L by the public servants stating that the encroachment has been removed and first information report was lodged against the encroachers. The informant of this case, Raghunath Prasad Gupta, was mentioned as one of the encroacher and F.I.R was lodged against him and therefore, he had grudge and enmity against the applicant. The applicant was threatened by him and therefore, applicant wrote a letter to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Hon'ble High Court and thereafter, lodged an F.I.R u/s 143, 506 I.P.C. against the informant on 13.09.2019 wherein the informant, Raghunath Gupta and his nephew, Vinod Kumar Gupta, have been charge-sheeted. The applicant has also lodged an F.I.R against them u/s 67 of the Information Technology Act as Case Crime No. 219 of 2019 on 20.09.2019. The co-accused, Sanjana Sharma, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, not finding any evidence of abetment of suicide against her. The charge-sheeted has been submitted against 4 accused persons but not against the applicant. The police has made application u/s 82 Cr.P.C. against the applicant on 30.01.2021 and the Court has called for report thereon. The applicant is residing at Allahabad and till date, no bailable or non-bailable warrant has ever been served on him. The offence u/s 306 I.P.C. is not made out against him. He has only been implicated because he appeared for co-accused, Sanjana Sharma, in Case Crime No. 149 of 2020.

The applicant has submitted that on account of election dispute of Gram Pradhan, N.C.R. Nos. 36 of 2007 and 35 of 2007 have been registered against him but no investigation has been conducted therein. There are 3 N.C.Rs also registered against him being N.C.R. No. 64 of 2015 u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., N.C.R. No. 145 of 2015 u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and N.C.R. No. 42 of 2018 u/s 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. at P.S.- Sevrahi, District- Kushinagar. After he filed the P.I.L. No. 1537 of 2019 against the encroachers of public road, he was also implicated by encroachers by way of counterblast in Case Crime No. 245 of 2017 u/s 307, 337, 339, 378, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Patherva, District- Kushinagar, Case Crime No. 130 of 2020 u/s 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Taryasujan, District- Kushinagar and Case Crime No. 502 of 2017 u/s 384, 419, 420, 406 I.P.C., P.S.- Sevrahi, District- Kushinagar. The applicant has no other criminal history. He has been victimized because he filed public interest litigation against the people who had grabbed the public pathway. The F.I.R. was lodged against them by the State and therefore, they have falsely implicated the applicant in number of cases. In the present case, he has been implicated because he appeared for the victim as an advocate for getting her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. recorded and for getting her medical examination conducted which was not being conducted by the Investigating Officer of the co-accused, Sanjana Sharma, in Case Crime No. 144 of 2020 despite registration of case of sexual harassment against the deceased, Rajeev Gupta. The applicant undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and the trial, if police report is submitted against him.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant. He has submitted that the applicant has criminal history of 10 cases. However, he has not disputed the explanation given regarding the cases by the applicant in the affidavit in support of the anticipatory bail application. He has further submitted that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and he does not deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

After considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that there is a case registered against the applicant. It cannot be definitely said when the police may apprehend him. After the lodging of F.I.R, the arrest can be made by the police at will. There is no definite period fixed for the police to arrest an accused against whom an F.I.R has been lodged. The courts have repeatedly held that arrest should be the last option for the police and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative or his custodial interrogation is required. Irrational and indiscriminate arrests are gross violation of human rights. In the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1994 SC 1349, the Apex Court has referred to the third report of National Police Commission wherein it is mentioned that arrests by the police in India is one of the chief source of corruption in the police. The report suggested that, by and large, nearly 60 percent of the arrests were either unnecessary or unjustified and that such unjustified police action accounted for 43.2 percent of expenditure of the jails. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative. According to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the arrest of an accused should be made.

In the present case, the ingredients for constituting offences u/s 306/107 I.P.C. are not made out against the applicant. He has not been convicted in any case. The informant has prior enmity with him is quite evident and his false implication in this case cannot be ruled out. Police has not submitted charge-sheet against him but is trying to arrest him.

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

1. The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

2. The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

3. That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

4. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

5. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

6. 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, default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

7. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

8. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

Order Date :- 3.3.2021

KS