Allahabad High Court
Haridwar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 April, 2022
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1887 of 2022
Applicant :- Haridwar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
Perused the record.
This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Haridwar in connection with Case Crime No.67 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Dheena, District- Chandauli.
At the very outset, learned A.G.A. contends that charge sheet has been submitted against applicant on 22.04.2019 upon which cognizance has also been taken by court concerned, vide Cognizance Taking Order dated 05.09.2019. Learned A.G.A. has then invited attention of Court to the order dated 10.02.2022 passed by this Court in Application (under section 482 Cr.P.C). No. 21415 of 2021 (Haridwar Vs. State of U.P. and another), which reads as under:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. appearing for State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash charge sheet dated 22.04.2019 as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 1082 of 2019 (State Versus Haridwar), arising out of Case Crime No. 67 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C., P. S.-Dheena, District-Chandauli, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is an old person aged about 72 years. It is argued that applicant has never committed any offence as alleged and never signed any forged document before the authorities. He did not sell 60 metric tonne of paddy to the government as alleged but the authorities wrongly showed the sell by the farmers in the account of applicant.
Perusal of the record shows that the applicant has 1.129 hectare of land whereas he has filed forged Khatauni of 15.129 hectare of land and sold 1160 quintal of paddy to the government. Initially when F.I.R. was lodged against him, he approached this Court by way of filing of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.5639 of 2019 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.2.2019 with the observation that unless credible evidence is collected by the investigating officer, he should not be arrested.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that prima facie offences are made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Similarly, while considering a prayer for quashing of charge sheet in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court also cannot examine any defence of accused, which has yet to be placed before Court below. Stage of placing defence of accused does not arise at the stage of charge sheet and, therefore, this Court also will not examine such defence at this stage.
Time and again it has been highlighted by Supreme Court that at the stage of charge sheet factual query and assessment of defence evidence is beyond purview of scrutiny under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The allegations being factual in nature can be decided only subject to evidence. In view of settled legal proposition, no findings can be recorded about veracity of allegations at this juncture in absence of evidence. Apex Court has highlighted that jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be sparingly/rarely invoked with complete circumspection and caution. Very recently in Criminal Appeal No.675 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1151 of 2018) (Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) decided on 15th April, 2019, Supreme Court observed as to what should be examined by High Court in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and in paras 15, 16 and 17 said as under :
"15. The High Court should have seen that when a specific grievance of the appellant in his complaint was that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC, then the question to be examined is as to whether there are allegations of commission of these two offences in the complaint or not. In other words, in order to see whether any prima facie case against the accused for taking its cognizable is made out or not, the Court is only required to see the allegations made in the complaint. In the absence of any finding recorded by the High Court on this material question, the impugned order is legally unsustainable.
16. The second error is that the High Court in para 6 held that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses on the point of occurrence.
17. In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case." (Emphasis added)
Recently, above view has been reiterated by Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2020 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Yogendra Singh Jadon and Another) decided on 31.01.2020.
No material irregularity in the procedure followed by Court below has been pointed out. It is not a case of grave injustice justifying interference in this application at this stage.
In view thereof, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in charge-sheet.However, the applicant shall be at liberty to move discharge application at an appropriate stage which shall be considered in accordance with law by the court concerned.
Needless to state that in the eventuality of filing any bail application by the applicant before the trial Court, it is expected from the trial Court to decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law after, considering sympathetically entire aspect of the matter as the applicant is old and infirm person.
However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the competent Court below is to act, in accordance with law.
With the above observation, this application stands disposed of."
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material brought on record as well as complicity of accused and also judgment of Apex Court in P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the present application for anticipatory bail is rejected.
Order Date :- 12.4.2022
Saif
