Allahabad High Court
Vijay Kumar vs State Of U.P And Another on 20 February, 2023
Bench: Jyotsna Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13135 of 2022
Applicant :- Vijay Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Pranshu Dwivedi,Ram Prakash Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Ram Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State and perused the papers on record.
3. The present application has been moved on behalf of the applicant-Vijay Kumar seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 0844 of 2018, under Sections 354(kha), 498-A, 420, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Tajganj, District Agra.
4. As per prosecution case, the applicant, who happens to be devar of the first informant (a widow lady), had malafide intention against her, as her husband died a few years ago; it is alleged in the FIR that when the first informant complained of his objectionable acts, the in-laws did not pay heed and have been physically and mentally harassing her; it is alleged in the FIR that the applicant assaulted her and tried to disrobe her.
5. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that he is innocent and the matter in fact arises out of domestic dispute between the widow lady (first informant) and rest of the family; there is no truth in the allegations; it is further contended that the applicant was granted protection under the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. and that he has not misused the liberty so granted, therefore, he may again be granted protection/bail till conclusion of trial; in support of the above assertions, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and Others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 has been cited.
6. The anticipatory bail application is opposed by the learned AGA pressing before me the following facts/circumstances and arguments as below:-
(i) Admittedly the chargesheet under Sections 354(kha), 498-A, 420, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. has been submitted against the applicant on 05.10.2019 and he has yet to appear before the court below, though in an application moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 5218 of 2020 (Vijay Kumar Singh and 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another), while refusing the prayer the applicant was given liberty to appear and surrender before the court below within a period of 4 weeks and with a direction to the court below that in case he surrenders and applied for bail, the same shall be decided in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Amrawati and another vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC);
(ii) My attention has also been drawn to the order passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 2751 of 2020, in which the applicant was granted anticipatory bail till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. only;
(iii) It is argued that on the basis of above orders, the applicant after submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has not appeared and now has again approached this Court by means of this instant application after almost 3 years of filing of the police report;
(iv) It is argued that the above conduct of the applicant disentitles him from any kind of relief now.
7. I considered the submission of both the sides, the material available on record demonstrating his conduct which prima facie does not appear to be bonafide and above board. It may also be noted that an anticipatory bail is not a substitute for regular bail. The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail are fundamentally different from the grant of regular bail in certain respects. The exercise of this extra-ordinary powers calls for existence of some circumstances which may prompt this court to intervene in the regular process of law for the purpose of furthering the ends of justice and for preventing abuse/misuse of process of law. I do not find any material to form an opinion that FIR against the applicant was lodged for merely bringing disgrace to his name, I do not find any ground good enough to give benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant, hence, the present anticipatory bail application is rejected.
8. It is made clear that observations made herein shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion at any stage of the case based on material before him.
Order Date :- 20.2.2023
#Vikram/-
