Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 28 March, 2023
Bench: Jyotsna Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13546 of 2022
Applicant :- Rajesh Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ran Vijay Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepak Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
1. Heard Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State and perused the papers on record.
2. The present application has been moved on behalf of the applicant-Rajesh Yadav seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 0104 of 2005, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Cantt, District Varanasi.
3. As per allegations in the FIR lodged in 2005, the applicant and four others got executed a fake will deed by impersonating in place of another person Satya Narain Prasad (father of the first informant); it is alleged in the FIR that a probate has already issued in her favour; the tenants were paying rent to her; her father died in the year 2000; thereafter the will deed in question was executed almost a year thereafter in 2001 and was registered; admittedly after investigation the chargesheet has been filed against the present applicant in 2008 and cognizance has already been taken.
4. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that in this case allegedly a will deed was first executed in favour of the co-accused Mali Ram Bhinda and thereafter another paper was executed in favour of the applicant by Mali Ram Bhinda; It is further contended that a civil suit was filed by the applicant in 2004 against the first informant and three others, thereafter this FIR has been lodged to exert pressure on him; the case is still pending; the matter is necessarily civil in nature and can only be decided by the civil court.
5. The anticipatory bail application is opposed by the other side highlighting certain facts as below:-
(i) The applicant Rajesh Yadav is named in the FIR being marginal witness of the will deed in question;
(ii) The role assigned to the applicant is that of witness, who identified the person, who was impersonating for the deceased;
(iii) It is pointed out that the applicant was protected from arrest in the light of the order passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. 482 Application No. 11142 of 2009 vide order dated 18.05.2009;
(iv) It is further pointed out that the aforesaid application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is still pending, however in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported at 2018 (16) SCC 299 proceeding against him has been revived and now the NBW is running against him;
(v) The conduct of the applicant is certainly not above board as he never made any attempt to get his application under Section 482 decided on merits and the same is pending since 2009; the order passed in his favour is interim one and no substantive relief has been granted to him till now.
(vi) The applicant has no intention to appear before the court below as till now he has failed to appear despite lapse of more than 14 years.
6. I considered the nature of allegations, the submissions of both the sides and went through all the material on record. It may 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 the name of the applicant has been dragged in to merely bring disgrace to his name. It is worth notice that the applicant is yet to appear in the case despite lapse of more than 14 years since taking of conginzance against him. This type of conduct cannot be condoned. 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.
7. It is made clear that observations made herein shall not in any way influence the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion, based on material before him, at any stage of the case.
Order Date :- 28.3.2023
#Vikram/-
