Allahabad High Court
Avdhesh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 April, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2076 of 2023
Applicant :- Avdhesh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Kranti Kiran Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Kranti Kiran Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0224 of 2022, under Sections 323 and 306 I.P.C., Police Station Mau, District Chitrakoot, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have made allegations against the deceased person of having stolen a mobile and as such is stated to have beaten her up thereby abetting her to commit suicide.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging and no other injury on any body part has been observed by the doctor conducting autopsy, thus the prosecution story stands falsified of beating her up by the applicant. Learned counsel has further stated that there are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. No ingredients of Section 107 I.P.C. have been fulfilled. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application and have stated that prior to filing of this anticipatory bail application, NBW was issued against him on 23.11.2022 and he has been declared a proclaimed offender and the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against him vide order dated 22.12.2022. They have further stated that the present anticipatory bail application is not maintainable in the light of the settled law of the Apex Court passed in case of Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730.
7. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court passed on 16.07.2022 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.3532 of 2022 (Suresh Babu vs. State of U.P. and Another), whereby the delinquent concerned was enlarged on anticipatory bail application despite there being a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the judgment of this Court passed in Suresh Babu (supra) whereby the anticipatory bail application of the said accused person was moved on 16.03.2022 in Court and the proclamation was made subsequent to it on 24.03.2022, as such he was enlarged on anticipatory bail application. The law relied by the counsel for the applicant does not match with the facts of the present anticipatory bail application as the present anticipatory bail application was moved on 08.02.2023 and the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been made on 22.12.202, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
9. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected.
10. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of anticipatory bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
(Krishan Pahal, J.)
Order Date :- 26.4.2023
Ravi Kant
