Dr. Amit Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 21078 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:159354
 
Court No. - 71
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4300 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Dr. Amit Kumar Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Atif
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prakhar Saran Srivastava,Shashank Kumar,Vinod Kumar Singh Kushwaha,Vinod Kumar Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

1. Heard Mr Ravi Shanker Tiwari, assisted by Md. Atif, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P., Mr Vinod Kumar Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

2. The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No. 0008 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467,468,471, 504,506,427 IPC P.S. Suhawal, District Ghazipur directly before this High Court without any rejection order from the Sessions Court.

3. In the affidavit filed in support of anticipatory bail application, it has been averred that the anticipatory bail application is being filed directly before this Court on account of the fact that the applicant is posted as Veterinary Officer, Government Veterinary Hospital, Lucknow City and is a permanently resident of district Lucknow which falls outside the territorial jurisdiction of the place where the F.I.R. in question has been registered and his case falls within the category laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ankit Bharti Vs State of UP and another, 2020 (3) ADJ 575 (FB).In this matter, the FIR has been lodged at District Prayagraj.

4. Learned A.G.A. raised preliminary objection that the applicant has approached this Court directly without approaching the Session Judge, which is not in consonance of Judgement rendered in the case of Ankit Bharti Vs State of UP and another, 2020 (3) ADJ 575 (FB). It has been further submitted that no extraordinary circumstances or exceptional circumstances have been mentioned by the applicant in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application as to why this application should be entertained directly by this Court. It is further submitted that in Ankit Bharti case (supra) it has been settled that 'where an accused not residing within the jurisdiction of the concerned Sessions Court faces a threat of arrest', it will be justified in entertaining a Petition / Application directly in the High Court and same shall be treated as a special circumstance.

5. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ankit Bharti and others (supra), has further clearly held that special circumstances must necessarily exist and be established, and the application must rest on a strong foundation to invoke concurrent jurisdiction of this Court directly; without rejection by the court below.

6. What has been stated in the affidavit that the applicant is resident of District Lucknow and FIR has been lodged in District Ghazipur and as soon as the applicant approaches the District Court Ghazipur for filing the anticipatory bail application he apprehends danger to his life due to enmity of Bachchan Singh with the complainant and other persons having criminal antecedents, therefore, his case is fully covered with the requirement of special circumstance, as provided in Ankit Bharti case (supra). Record also discloses that in the matter charge sheet has been filed against the applicant whereupon the court below has taken cognizance on 17.09.2022

7. Moreover, the prosecution allegation is that the named accused persons have committed fraud by intruding over the land Gata No. 282 measuring 0.1770 hectare of Village Bawada, Pargana and Tehsil Zamania, District Ghazipur, which is recorded in the name of Primary Pathsala Bawada. It is also alleged that the named accused viz Bachchan Singh, who happens to be the Manager of the Purva Madhyamik Vidalaya, Sanyukt Nagar (Bawada) have fraudulently obtained recognition by using fictitious and fraudulent documents sowing Gata No. 129/10 and 151/5, Mauja Bawada to be the property of the School while the same is recorded as Naveen Parti in the revenue records upon which they are raising construction by illegally occupying the same. Applicant is said to be the Member of the Managing Committee.

8. It is submitted that in this case applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the police with ulterior motive. It is further submitted that there is no credible evidence to connect the applicant with the crime in question. The applicant is under apprehension of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the trial. It is further submitted that just to create pressure upon the applicant and co accused persons and to give colour to the civil dispute, present FIR has been lodged with false and concocted story.

9. It is further submitted that co accused Bachhan Singh has already been granted bail by the court below vide order dated 10.5.2023 and the case of the applicant stands on better footing than that of co accused. It is further submitted that applicant has never been member either of the society of of the Managing Committee and as such he has nothing to do with the said institution and he is completely innocent person having been framed only due to enmity of co-accused Sri Bachchan Singh with the complainant.

10. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as Learned AGA have opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said facts.

11. 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.

12. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant Dr. Amit Kumar Singh, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- 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, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

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

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

(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 his in accordance with law.

13. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

14. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of.

Order Date :- 8.8.2023

RavindraKSingh