Allahabad High Court
Laakhan Singh And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 June, 2022
Bench: Sadhna Rani (Thakur)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16921 of 2022
Applicant :- Laakhan Singh And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sati Shanker Tripathi,A.K. Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
By means of this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants seek to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this court by quashing the order dated 19.5.2022 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No. 01, Mathura in criminal case no. 1319/IX/2020, State Vs.Saudan and others) case crime no. 895 of 2019, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 325, 336, 427, 452 I.P.C. police station Kotwali District Mathura.
By the impugned order, the learned lower court rejected the prayer of the applicants to extend the order dated 31.1.2022 of this court.
As per the facts of the case vide order dated 31.1.2022 the coordinate bench of this court granted anticipatory bail to Lakhan Singh, Braj Ballabh, Girraj Singh and Tejpal Singh involved in case crime no. 895 of 2019, under sections 147, 148, 323, 336, 427, 452 I.P.C. According to this order the accused persons were ordered to be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Relying upon the judgment dated 21.5.2021 of Rajeev Khanna Vs. State of U.P., MANU/SCOR/16102/2021, learned counsel for the applicants prayed before the Officer concerned in the trial court that on the basis of law laid down in this judgment time bound anticipatory bail order cannot be passed, hence, the prayer was made to extend the same. The judgment dated 21.5.2021 has been placed before this court. As per this judgment it was found that High Court can not pass the order of anticipatory bail for a limited period of 45 days. On the basis of this ruling, the impugned order of the trial court dated 19.5.2022 is prayed to be set aside.
Per contra learned A.G.A. opposed this application and argued that order dated 31.1.2022 was passed by this court till then the report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C./charge sheet had been filed by the Investigating Officer on 18.10.2020 and on the basis of this report, cognizance had already been taken by the court concerned on 19.10.2020. This fact was not disclosed before the court at the time of passing the order dated 31.1.2022, hence, the applicants did not come with clean hands before this court earlier and succeeded in procuring the order dated 31.1.2022 by concealing the facts. Now, they can not claim benefit of their own wrong and cannot get the order dated 31.1.2022 extended till disposal of the case.
It is admitted fact that when the order dated 31.1.2022 was passed by this court the charge sheet had already been filed on 18.10.2020 and cognizance had been taken by the court concerned on 19.10.2020 and this fact was not disclosed by the applicants before the court and they obtained the order dated 31.1.2022 wrongly. The applicants cannot be said to have appeared before this court or before the trial court earlier with clean hands. The trial court has no jurisdiction to modify, withdraw or extend the order passed by this court. Hence, the order dated 19.5.2022 passed by the trial court refusing to extend the order dated 31.1.2022 cannot be said to be against law. In the judgment of Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, Hon'ble Apex Court held that the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence, likelihood of fleeing justice, etc. The court can impose conditions spelt out in Section 437(3), Cr.P.C by virtue of Section 438(2). The necessity to impose other restrictive conditions, would have to be weighed on a case by case basis, and depending upon the materials produced by the state or the Investigating Officer.
As learned trial court had no jurisdiction to modify or extend the order passed by this court and as per judgment of Sushil Agrawal Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and another (supra), it is within the jurisdiction of this court to pass restrictive order depending upon the facts of the case.
The applicants procured the order dated 31.1.2022 by concealing the facts from this court. They did not come with clean hands before the court, so they can not be entitled for any relief from this court also. In my opinion, the application has no merit.
However, if the applicants appear before the court below within 30 days from today and move an application for bail, it shall be disposed of in view of law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773 and Brahm Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016 (95) ACC 950.
The application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.6.2022/Gss
