Allahabad High Court
Dharmendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 August, 2023
Bench: Mayank Kumar Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:167546
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7885 of 2023
Appellant :- Dharmendra Singh
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Sengar
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vijay Singh Sengar
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellants with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 15.07.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jalun at Orai in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 783 of 2023, arising out of Complaint Case No. 109 of 2021, under Sections 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Nadigaon, District Jalaun.
3. The fact of the case are mentioned in the complaint case filed by Bhanu Prakash Verma against so many persons including the appellant in which it is stated that Prahlad and Raghuveer have executed a forged sale-deed in favour of one Meena Devi, who happens to be the mother of the present appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The only allegation against the present appellant is that he committed conspiracy in execution of the aforesaid sale-deed of the land of Nagar Panchayat. It is also submitted that so far as purchaser Meena Devi and seller Prahlad are concerned, they have already been granted anticipatory bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 12.06.2023 and 31.07.2023 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 6742 of 2023 and 8510 of 2023. It is further submitted that the case of present appellant is better than the case of co-accused Meena Devi and Prahlad, who have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. It is further submitted that the criminal history of the appellant has been explained in para-32 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. In case the appellant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. assisted by learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that earlier the appellant had preferred an application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. being Application (482 Cr.P.C.) No. 19536 of 2023 but he did not comply the directions of this Court and further he did not surrender before the court concerned.
6. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on para-3 of the judgment dated 09.07.2019 of the Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1006 of 2019 (Kamlesh & another Vs. the State of Rajasthan and another), which reads as under :
"We are of the view that the order of the High Court cannot be sustained. High Court ought to have considered the application on merits. The fact that petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed for quashing was not conclusive and could not be the reason for rejecting the application.........."
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant/applicant as well as learned A.G.A., the perusal of record and without commenting on the merits of the case, the appellant/applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case for the limited period considering the exception considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC Online SC 98.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the appellant is set-aside.
9. In the event of arrest of the appellant/applicant-Dharmendra Singh, shall be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The appellant/applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police office as and when required;
(ii) The appellant/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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office;
(iii) The appellant/applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
Order Date :- 21.8.2023
Prajapati
