Allahabad High Court
Ram Mohan Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. on 16 March, 2021
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved On:- 12.03.2021
Delivered On:- 16.03.2021
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1638 of 2021
Applicant :- Ram Mohan Singh And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Indra Jit Singh,Om Prakash Singh (Senior Adv.)
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
1. Heard Shri O.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Indra Jit Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State.
2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, namely, Ram Mohan Singh @ Ram Babu Singh, Dharmendra Singh and Pintoo Candel, with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 16-A of 2005, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 336, 448, 342, 426 IPC and Section 7 of C.L.A Act, Police Station- Naubasta, District- Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of trial.
3. 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.
4. There is allegation in the FIR that adjacent to the factory of the informant, there is a degree college run by co-accused, Lal Singh Tomar. The aforesaid person was pressurizing the informant to sell his factory to him. When he refused to sell the same on 06.01.2005, aforesaid co-accused, Lal Singh Tomar, along with hundreds of armed men forcibly started erecting a wall on the western side of the factory which was opposed by the employees of the factory. When the employee of the factory, Rajan Batra, tried to stop him, he was beaten by the butt of the rifle and gun and was dragged inside the college. The main co-accused, Lal Singh Tomar, made firing and the others pelted bricks and stones. The employees informed the informant and his sons who reached on the spot where they were held captive and beaten. Three mobile phones of his son, Rs. 20,000/- cash and wrist watch of Umesh Batra were snatched and his Maruti van was damaged by pelting stones. The applicant made a call to the higher authorities. Lal Singh Tomar threatened his sons of life and stated that in case they do not sell their factory to him he will kill them.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants has submitted that after investigation, the police submitted charge sheet on 21.01.2006. Thereafter, orders of further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C were passed on 30.01.2001 and the investigation proceeded and charge sheet was submitted on 24.02.2009. Summons were issued to the applicants. The applicants were not named in the FIR. It was lodged as a counter blast to the Original Suit No. 64 of 2005 filed by degree college of co-accused, Lal Singh Tomar, against the informant's side. There is no medical examination report of the alleged injureds and there are no specific allegations against the applicants. Other civil suits are also pending between the parties. Co-accused, Lal Singh Tomar, has been granted bail by the court below on 25.11.2019.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and judgment of this Court in the case of Adil Vs. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S No.438 Cr.P.C. No. 8285 of 2020 and has submitted that even after filing of charge sheet, anticipatory bail can be granted to the applicants.
7. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicants, they are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicants are not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
8. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that investigation regarding the charges against the applicants have been conducted twice and charge sheet has been submitted by SIS, Kanpur and then by CBCID. Last charge sheet was submitted in the year 2009 and there is nothing on record to show as to what is happening in the trial. No order of the trial Court on the order sheet has been brought on record. From the year 2009 till now, the applicants have not appeared before the trial court. Charges have been found proved by the Investigating Officers from the evidence collected by them and, hence there is no justification for granting anticipatory bail to the applicants at this belated stage. The Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal (Supra) and Adil (Supra) has held that anticipatory bail can be granted to the accused till conclusion of trial provided the accused makes out a case for the same. In the present case, there are no exceptional circumstances warranting grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.
9. The application is accordingly, rejected.
Order date:- 16.03.2021
Rohit
