Allahabad High Court
Pravesh Kumar Bhardwaj vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 January, 2023
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7639 of 2022
Applicant :- Pravesh Kumar Bhardwaj
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Prakash Pandey,Ashok Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Swetashwa Agarwal
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State.
Apprehending his arrest, applicant has moved present application for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Complaint Case No. 19 of 2018, under Sections 365, 511 IPC and Section 3(1) (s) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Chandpa, District Hathras.
Facts, in brief, are that a complaint was filed by opposite party no. 2 against applicant nos. 1 and 2, in which applicants were summoned by the learned Court concerned under Section 365/511 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (Dha) of S.C./S.T. Act. The applicant moved this anticipatory bail application under the apprehension of imminent arrest by the police seeking protection from arrest.
In the meantime, applicant no. 1 Ramveer Uapdhayay died, therefore, his name was deleted from the array of parties, vide order dated 23.09.2022. Now, the anticipatory bail application survives only in respect of applicant Pravesh Kumar Bhardwaj @ Ranu Pandit, who is said to be P. A. of applicant no. 1 Ramveer Upadhyay.
As per allegation in complaint, attempt to make abduction of opposite party no. 2 was said to be made by the applicant and words relating to his caste Dhobi were also used.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in this case no case under the S.C./S.T. Act is made out. Only for political rivalry with Devendra Agarwal, this complaint was lodged by his driver only for the purposes of harassment of the applicant, who is neither a political leader nor any such worker. It is also submitted that prior to this incident, an FIR was also lodged against these applicants, in which after investigation final report was submitted, even on protest the Court accepted the final report. Again, this complaint was filed. In support of complaint, statement of complainant, opposite party no. 2, under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was recorded and other witnesses Yogesh Gupta and Annu were also recorded. In the statements of both the witnesses, nothing has been said likely to show the commission of an act under the S.C./S.T. Act. The allegation said to be made is against co-accused Ramveer Upadhyay, who had already died. After summoning order passed by the learned Court, there is apprehension of arrest by the police against the applicant, therefore, a request has been made for anticipatory bail.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 opposed the aforesaid prayer and urged that by virtue of Section 18 of the Act, anticipatory bail is not applicable in case of such offence. They further urged that there is allegation against the applicant with co-accused Ramveer Uapdhyay, who has already died, that he used the words relating to his caste and also made attempt to abduct the opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 also urged that applicant has filed application under Section 482 CrPC before this Court and in the case of Shivam vs. State of U.P. and Another; Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2110 of 2021, judgment dated 05.04.2021, it has been held that where the applicant wants to get relief under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the same cause, he is not entitled for the benefit of anticipatory bail. The learned Court concerned found prima facie case made out under the S.C./S.T. Act with Section 365/511 I.P.C., therefore, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the allegation regarding attempt of abduction of the opposite party no. 2 has been made in the complaint by the complainant with further allegation that words relating to the caste of the complainant were used by Ramveer Upadhyay, the co-accused and this applicant was his P.A., he was also present with him and in furtherance of common intention, they also made attempt to abduct the complainant. These allegations made by the complainant were supported by the witnesses whose statements were recorded as PW-1 and PW-2. In this way there appears no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected.
However, if the applicant appear and move bail application before the Court concerned, it shall be heard and disposed of as expeditiously as possible in the light of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773.
Order Date :- 2.1.2023/Shafique
