Allahabad High Court
Awadh Narayan Singh And And 6 ... vs State Of U.P. on 31 March, 2023
Bench: Nalin Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2710 of 2023
Applicant :- Awadh Narayan Singh And And 6 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vimlendu Tripathi,Ravindra Prakash Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants - Awadh Narayan Singh, Rampher Singh, Bambahadur Singh, Tungnath Singh, Kamala Singh, Ghanshyam Singh and Jai Prakash Singh seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.118 of 1986, under Section 364 IPC, Police Station Kalwari, District Basti.
Heard Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of their arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. It has been submitted that the applicants are old aged and infirm persons suffering from the diseases of old age. In case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
It reveals from the perusal of the record that an F.I.R. against the accused-persons was lodged for kidnapping of the minor son of the informant Shiv Prasad Singh and investigation in the matter started. However, during the course of investigation, the kidnapped boy was recovered and the entire story of the F.I.R. was found false and final report was submitted by the police. It also reveals during the course of investigation that the daughter of the informant was having some objectionable conduct, which was protested by the villagers including the present applicants and that might be the reason that a false F.I.R. was lodged and after submission of the final report, protest petition was filed by the informant and the learned court rejecting the final report, summoned the present accused-applicants straightway to face trial under Section 364 IPC on 16.11.1988. Subsequently, the matter remained pending for the appearance of the applicants and meanwhile they challenged the summoning order before this Court by means of an Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.- 9190 of 1989 wherein interim protection was granted to them, but as submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants, subsequently the aforesaid application was dismissed. Meanwhile, process for appearance of the accused-persons was continued to be issued by the trial court and it also transpires from the perusal of the copies of the order-sheets filed by the accused-applicants that an order has been passed to issue process under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. against all the accused-applicants vide order dated 14.11.2022, which means that the accused-applicants have been declared proclaimed offender by the Court.
The conduct of the accused-applicants falls within the ambit of the law promulgated by Hon'ble Apex Court in Prem Shankar Prasad Versus State of Bihar and Another, 2021 SCC OnLine Supreme Court 955. In the facts of the case, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 406, 420 IPC against the accused and thus it was explicit that a prima facie case against the accused was found. From the record, it reveals that the arrest warrant was issued by the Magistrate against the accused and thereafter proceedings under Sections 82, 83 Cr.P.C. had been initiated pursuant to the order passed by the Magistrate. Only thereafter the accused moved an application before the trial court for anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the Sessions Court. However, subsequently anticipatory bail was granted to the aforesaid accused by the High Court and when the matter came before the Hon'ble Apex Court, it was observed like this.
"19. Despite the above observations on merits and despite the fact that it was brought to the notice of the High Court that respondent No. 2 - accused is absconding and even the proceedings under sections 82-83 of Cr. P.C. have been initiated as far as back on 10.01.2019, the High Court has just ignored the aforesaid relevant aspects and has granted anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2 - accused by observing that the nature of accusation is arising out of a business transaction. The specific allegations of cheating, etc., which came to be considered by learned Additional Sessions Judge has not at all been considered by the High Court. Even the High Court has just ignored the factum of initiation of proceedings under sections 82-83 of Cr. P.C. by simply observing that "be that as it may". The aforesaid relevant aspect on grant of anticipatory bail ought not to have been ignored by the High Court and ought to have been considered by the High Court very seriously and not casually.
20. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma (Supra), it is observed and held by this court that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of section 82 of Cr. P.C., he is not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail."
In view of that, I deem it not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. Such persons, who do not cooperate with the investigation at all, are not entitled for any relief from this Court by way of granting anticipatory bail. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant regarding old age and infirmity of the accused-applicants is also not going to help the accused-applicants in the facts and scenario of the case. The prayer made in the application is refused.
However, it is observed that if the accused-applicants surrender before the court concerned or brought before the court after being arrested by the police, their bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 particularly, the directions given for the offences provided in Category B of the head "Categories / Types of Offences."
It is further directed that the learned court concerned, while considering the bail application of the applicant in the light of Satender Kumar Antil case (supra), shall pass an order strictly in compliance of the directions given in the aforesaid judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in letter and spirit, particularly complying with the order dated 21.3.2023 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid matter.
The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 31.3.2023
ss
