Rajiv Verma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 18660 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:49249 
 
Court No. - 16
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1217 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Rajiv Verma
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Jauhari,Sonika Dixit
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

On 23.05.2023, after hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. this Court had passed the following interim order -

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present applications under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0119 of 2021 under Sections 364 I.P.C., Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow is primarily filed before this Court on the ground that brother of Late Mrigendra Pandey is the former President of Central Bar Association, Lucknow, therefore, applicant is having threat before the court below, accordingly, application is directly filed before this Court on the strength of judgment of this Court passed in Full Bench in the case of Ankit Bharti Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.1094 of 2020.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicants were falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submitted that one Dr. J.D. Pandey was having three wives and Dr. Savita Pandey was the third one and there was no issue to Savita Pandey. He further submitted that Dr. J.D. Pandey during his life, executed a sale deed in favour of Dr. Savita Pandey (third wife) for area 2000 sq. feet of the property situated at 7 Dalibagh, Lucknow, which was sold in the year 2012 by Savita Pandey and the purchaser had taken the possession over the property in question. Thereafter, Mrigendra Pandey, step son of Dr. Savita Pandey lodged F.I.R. by moving application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. under the order of Magistrate F.I.R. No.369 of 2013 under Section 364 I.P.C was lodged with the allegation that one Surendra Pandey, Vishal Saxena, Sharad Saxena and Smt. Geeta Saxena abducted Dr. Savita Pandey with a conspiracy for getting her money as well as property. The detail investigation was conducted and final report was submitted in the aforesaid case, which was accepted by the court concerned.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on 25.10.2020 another application with the allegation of abduction of Dr. Savita Pandey is moved by Mrigendra Pandey under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and during the course of pendency of aforesaid application, Mr. Mrigendra Pandey died on 30.12.2020 but this fact was not disclosed by respondent no.4 and order dated 7.1.2021 for lodging of F.I.R. was passed by Magistrate, then on 17.3.2021 present F.I.R. No.119 of 2021 under Section 364 I.P.C. was lodged with the new allegation that accused persons, Smt. Krishna Saxena W/o Jagdeep Kumar Saxena, Satyarth Saxena S/o Late Jagdeep Kumar Saxena and applicants under a conspiracy with the intention to take away the money as well as the property of his step mother, Dr. Savita Pandey was abducted and earlier one F.I.R. No.369 of 2013 was lodged under Section 364 I.P.C. as no action was taken by the police.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the investigation of case in question was conducted and the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that no offence is made, then final report was submitted. Thereafter, protest petition was filed in the most sketchy manner and learned court below without considering the facts that earlier for the same offence, one F.I.R., i.e., Case Crime No.369 of 2013 under Section 364 I.P.C., Police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow was lodged, in which, final report was submitted, rejected the final report and treated as a complaint case. Statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. of Nripendra Pandey, Susheel as well as Surendra Dutt Pandey were recorded and in the statement of Surendra Dutt Pandey which was recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. clearly reveals that Dr. Savita Pandey was residing with Surendra Dutt Pandey and he also stated that on 26.5.2019, one will deed was executed by her in favour of Nripendra Pandey as well as Surendra Dutt Pandey and she died on 28.5.2019. As on her willing, her body was given to Sankarachaya Institute Bhilai, Chhattisgrah but all these facts were not considered by the court below and summoning order was issued. He further submitted that applicant is ready to cooperate in the proceeding of the complaint case, therefore, they are entitled for anticipatory bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of applicant but he does not dispute this fact that one F.I.R. was lodged by Mrigendra Pandey in the year 2013 for the offence under Section 364 I.P.C., in relation to abduction of Dr. Savita Pandey, in which, final report was submitted and no protest petition was filed in the aforesaid case and thereafter, on 25.10.2020 another application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved and the order was passed by the learned Magistrate on the said application for lodging of F.I.R. on 7.1.2021, at the time of passing the order of learned Magistrate, it was not informed by the learned counsel for Mrigendra Pandey that he died on 30.12.2020 and after detailed investigation, final report was submitted. He also does not dispute this fact that protest petition was filed and after recording the statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. summoning order was passed, therefore, applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

7. Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the F.I.R. No.369 of 2013 and F.I.R. No.119 of 2021 as well as protest petition and the statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. it is evident that in the statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. of Surendra Dutt Pandey, he categorically stated that he was residing with Dr Savita Pandey and she died on 28.5.2019 and in accordance with her wishes, her body was handed over to Sankaracharya Institute Bhilai, Chhatisgarh but all these facts were not considered by court at the time of summoning of order, therefore, I am of the view that the applicants are entitled for interim bail.

8. Till the next date of listing, in the event of arrest of the applicant, namely, Rajiv Verma & Vandana Verma, in the aforesaid case, he shall be released forthwith by the Station House Officer of the police station concerned, on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with the following condition:-

(i) That the accused-applicant shall make themselves available for interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation;

(ii) That the accused-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

(iii) That the accused-applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

9. Issue notice to the private respondent.

10. List on 17.7.2023 for final disposal.

11. In the meantime, the A.G.A. may file objection."

No counter affidavit has been filed nor anything has come to light, which may persuade this Court to take a view, different from the view taken while passing the aforesaid order, nor the learned A.G.A. has pointed out any violation of the conditions of interim anticipatory bail committed by the applicant..

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the interim order dated 23.05.2023 is hereby made absolute and the application is allowed in terms of the aforesaid order.

(Subhash Vidyarthi J.)

Order Date :- 24.7.2023

A.Nigam