Allahabad High Court
Navneet Bhadauria @ Navneet Bhadauriya vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, ... on 7 February, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8240
Court No. - 31
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2706 of 2024
Applicant :- Navneet Bhadauria @ Navneet Bhadauriya
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow
Counsel for Applicant :- Purnendu Chakravarty,Alok Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Digvijay Nath Dubey,Jaya Pandey
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
1- Heard Mr. Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Parul Kant, learned Additional Government Advocate-I for the State of U.P., Mr. Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of first informant through video conferencing from Allahabad and perused the record.
2- After three rounds of litigation before this Court and two rounds of litigation before the Hon'ble Apex Court, this is third anticipatory bail application on behalf of the applicant Navneet Bhadauria seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. No. 363 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, police station Vibhuti Khand, district Lucknow.
3- Brief facts relating to previous anticipatory bail applications of the applicant, bail cancellation application moved on behalf of the complainant and Petition for Special Leave to Appeals filed by the applicant in this matter, which are required to be stated are as under:-
3.1- Applicant is named accused and after submission of charge-sheet against him, he is facing trial.
3.2- Vide order of this Court dated 18.11.2022 passed in anticipatory bail application no. 1841 of 2022, applicant was granted anticipatory bail subject to condition that he shall cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court on each dates unless inevitable.
3.3- On account of non-cooperation of the applicant in the trial, complainant preferred Bail Cancellation Application No. 37 of 2024 which was allowed vide order of this Court dated 05.07.2024 and the anticipatory bail granted to the applicant was cancelled and the applicant was directed to surrender before the trial court forthwith. The order dated 05.07.2024 reads as under:-
Heard Mr. Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Virendra, learned A.G.A. representing the State and Mr. Chandan Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 through video conferencing.
The instant application has been moved by the applicant - Deepak Sharma with a prayer to cancel the anticipatory bail granted vide order of this Court dated 18.11.2022 to opposite party no. 2-Navneet Bhadauria mainly on the ground of violation of condition no.1 of anticipatory bail order dated 18.11.2022, which reads as under :
"(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court on each dates unless inevitable.
(ii) xxxx
(iii) xxxx
(iv) xxxx"
The only submission of Mr. Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant is that opposite party no. 2 is not cooperating with expeditious disposal of trial. Referring the order-sheet of the trial Court, he submits that on 16.06.2023, 28.06.2023, 27.07.2023, 10.08.2023, 21.08.2023, 17.11.2023, 18.01.2024 and 29.01.2024, opposite party no. 2 did not personally appear before the trial Court and moved exemption applications through his counsel in a casual manner.
On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the said fact of moving exemption applications, however, he submits that opposite party no. 2 was appearing before the trial Court on the aforesaid dates through his counsel, therefore, it cannot be said that he is not cooperating with expeditious disposal of trial.
Having heard submission of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that it is not in dispute that on several dates as noted above, opposite party no. 2 did not appear in person and moved applications through his counsel for exemption of his appearance. Record also shows that case is running at a slow pace on account of delaying tactics adopted by accused persons by adopting different modus operandi. Opposite party no. 2 despite granting time vide order dated 17.05.2024 did not file counter affidavit. This Court is also of the view that despite granting anticipatory bail to opposite party no. 2, his non-appearance in person before the trial Court and frequently moving exemption applications on the dates fixed amount to his non-cooperation with the expeditious disposal of the trial.
In view of the above, order dated 18.11.2022 granting anticipatory bail to opposite party no. 2-Navneet Bhadauria is hereby cancelled. Opposite party no. 2 is directed to surrender before the trial Court forthwith.
Accordingly, instant anticipatory bail cancellation application succeeds and is allowed.
This order be communicated to the concerned trial Court for information.
3.4- The applicant instead of surrendering challenged the said order of this Court dated 05.07.2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 9752 of 2024, which has been dismissed vide order dated 29.07.2024, which reads as under:-
"Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.
The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of."
3.5- The applicant even after dismissal of his aforesaid Special Leave to Appeal did not surrender and filed second anticipatory bail application no. 2117 of 2024 before this Court, which was again rejected vide order of this Court dated 25.10.2024. The order dated 25.10.2024 reads as under:-
1- Heard Mr. Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Arunendra, learned A.G.A. representing the State and Mr. Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel for complainant through video conferencing from Allahabad.
2- By means of this second anticipatory bail application, the applicant Navneet Bhadauria has prayed for granting anticipatory bail to him in Case Crime No. 363 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, police station Vibhuti Khand, district Lucknow.
3- The facts that formed the bedrock of this second anticipatory bail application is that earlier applicant moved a Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 1841 of 2022, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2022 and the applicant was granted anticipatory bail with the following conditions :
(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court on each dates unless inevitable.
(ii) That the 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 tamper with the evidence.
(iii) That the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.
(iv) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the concerned court below will be at liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail of the applicant after recording reasons.
4- After the order dated 18.11.2022 granting anticipatory bail, the applicant flouted the order of this Court dated 18.11.2022 and did not cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the trial giving chance to the complainant to file anticipatory bail cancellation application being Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 37 of 2024 with the prayer to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to opposite party No. 2/Navneet Bhadauria mainly on the ground of violation of condition No. 1, i.e. for non-cooperation of the opposite party No. 2 in disposal of the trial.
5- After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court vide order dated 05.07.2024 cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to opposite party No. 2 and he was directed to surrender before the trial court forthwith. The order dated 05.07.2024 reads as under :
"Heard Mr. Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Virendra, learned A.G.A. representing the State and Mr. Chandan Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 through video conferencing.
The instant application has been moved by the applicant - Deepak Sharma with a prayer to cancel the anticipatory bail granted vide order of this Court dated 18.11.2022 to opposite party no. 2-Navneet Bhadauria mainly on the ground of violation of condition no.1 of anticipatory bail order dated 18.11.2022, which reads as under :
"(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court on each dates unless inevitable.
(ii) xxxx
(iii) xxxx
(iv) xxxx"
The only submission of Mr. Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant is that opposite party no. 2 is not cooperating with expeditious disposal of trial. Referring the order-sheet of the trial Court, he submits that on 16.06.2023, 28.06.2023, 27.07.2023, 10.08.2023, 21.08.2023, 17.11.2023, 18.01.2024 and 29.01.2024, opposite party no. 2 did not personally appear before the trial Court and moved exemption applications through his counsel in a casual manner.
On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the said fact of moving exemption applications, however, he submits that opposite party no. 2 was appearing before the trial Court on the aforesaid dates through his counsel, therefore, it cannot be said that he is not cooperating with expeditious disposal of trial.
Having heard submission of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that it is not in dispute that on several dates as noted above, opposite party no. 2 did not appear in person and moved applications through his counsel for exemption of his appearance. Record also shows that case is running at a slow pace on account of delaying tactics adopted by accused persons by adopting different modus operandi. Opposite party no. 2 despite granting time vide order dated 17.05.2024 did not file counter affidavit. This Court is also of the view that despite granting anticipatory bail to opposite party no. 2, his non-appearance in person before the trial Court and frequently moving exemption applications on the dates fixed amount to his non-cooperation with the expeditious disposal of the trial.
In view of the above, order dated 18.11.2022 granting anticipatory bail to opposite party no. 2-Navneet Bhadauria is hereby cancelled. Opposite party no. 2 is directed to surrender before the trial Court forthwith.
Accordingly, instant anticipatory bail cancellation application succeeds and is allowed.
This order be communicated to the concerned trial Court for information."
6- Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the above order of this Court dated 05.07.2024, the applicant-Navneet Bhadauria approached Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 9752 of 2024, which has been dismissed vide order dated 29.07.2024. The order dated 29.07.2024 reads as under :
"Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.
The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of."
7- Even after dismissal of above Special Leave to Appeal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applicant did not surrender before the trial court and kept on absconding till date.
8- After cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicant vide order dated 05.07.2024, when applicant did not surrender, non-bailable warrant was issued against him pursuant to order dated 22.07.2024 of the trial Court and next date was fixed for 17.08.2024. The applicant instead of surrendering moved an application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. (Section 72 BNSS) on technical ground and also preferred application under Section 88 Cr.P.C. (Section 91 BNSS) with a prayer to accept the bond. Both these applications have been rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 21.08.2024 observing inter alia that the case is at the stage of framing of charge and despite issuance of non-bailable warrant after cancellation of his anticipatory bail, he is not appearing before the trial Court. The said order dated 21.08.2024 was challenged by the applicant before the High Court at Lucknow Bench by means of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 7515 of 2024, which has been dismissed vide detailed order dated 30.08.2024.
9- Main substratum of argument of Mr. Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant is that after cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicant vide order dated 05.07.2024 by this Court and dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 9752 of 2024 of the applicant-Navneet Bhadauria by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 29.07.2024, the bail cancellation application being Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 36 of 2024 and Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 38 of 2024 in respect of other co-accused, namely, Vijay Pal Prajapati and Rajeev Lochan Paliwal (who were earlier granted anticipatory bail) have been dismissed by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.09.2024, therefore, applicant is entitled to get anticipatory bail even after order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
10- On the other hand, Mr. Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed by contending that this Court while cancelling anticipatory bail of the applicant vide order dated 05.07.2024 had directed the applicant to surrender before the trial Court forthwith. The said order has been confirmed by the Apex Court vide order dated 29.07.2024 as noted above. Even then applicant despite issuance of non-bailable warrant did not surrender. It is also pointed out that the order dated 21.08.2024 was also challenged by the applicant in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 7515 of 2024, which has been dismissed vide order dated 30.08.2024 and the same has also attained finality because said order dated 30.08.2024 was not further challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court. So far as order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of bail cancellation application of co-accused is concerned, it is pointed out that aforesaid order dated 02.09.2024 has been passed by the coordinate Bench without considering the order dated 05.07.2024 of this Court and order dated 29.07.2024 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Much emphasis has been given by contending that the trial is being delayed on account of non-cooperation of the applicant and this fact has also been mentioned by the trial Court in the order dated 21.08.2024, therefore, the applicant deliberately did not file the said order dated 21.08.2024 of the trial Court and order dated 30.08.2024 of the coordinate bench of this Court alongwith this anticipatory bail application dated 08.09.2024, as such, applicant has not come with clean hand before this Court.
11- Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter, I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for complainant. This Court is of the view that since the order dated 05.07.2024 of this Court cancelling anticipatory bail granted to the applicant-Navneet Bhadauria has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 9752 of 2024 vide order dated 29.07.2024 and the matter has already been set at rest in respect of anticipatory bail application of the applicant, I do not find any good ground to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
12- The second anticipatory bail application is accordingly rejected.
3.6- The above order of this Court dated 25.10.2024 was again challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 15856 of 2024, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 22.11.2024 with certain clarification, which reads as under:-
The petitioner seeks leave to challenge the order 25.10.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2117/2024.
Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner. In view of the order which we propose to pass, we deem it absolutely unnecessary to issue notice to the respondent-State.
Learned senior counsel would submit that the order dated 29.7.2024 passed by this Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 9752/2024 act as a legal trammel for the petitioner to move the High Court afresh. It is further submitted that under similar circumstances, in the case of the co-accused, rather the main accused in the subject crime, though cancellation was sought for, it was declined.
Taking into account all such contentions and without making any observation(s) on the merits, we make it clear that the order dated 29.7.2024 passed by this Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 9752/2024 would not be a legal trammel for the petitioner in moving fresh application for anticipatory bail before the High Court. Needless to say that in case, such an application is moved, the same shall be considered on its own merits.
In view of the fact that earlier the High Court itself granted interim protection to the petitioner and also in case of the co-accused his bail was declined to be cancelled, the petitioner is granted interim protection for a period of two weeks from today to enable him to move fresh application as mentioned above.
The special leave petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty and clarification.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
4- In the aforesaid background, applicant has preferred this third anticipatory bail application before this Court.
5- It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 22.11.2024 while dismissing the Special Leave Petition of the applicant against the order dated 25.10.2024 of this Court granted interim protection to the applicant for a period of two weeks to enable him to move fresh anticipatory bail application, hence applicant has preferred this third anticipatory bail application mainly on the ground mentioned in paragraph No. 33 of the anticipatory bail application, which is quoted herein below:-
"33) That the present third Anticipatory Bail Application is being preferred on the following grounds amongst others: -
a. Because by the order dated 22.11.2024 in SLP No. 15856/2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted liberty to the applicant to file fresh anticipatory bail application for anticipatory bail before the Hon'ble High Court.
b. Because the Bail Cancellation Applications No. 36 of 2024 and 38 of 2024 have been rejected by this Hon'ble Court on the ground that on none of the dates, the case could not proceed because of absence of accused persons. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the accused persons are delaying disposal of the trial and in fact, the trial is yet to commence.
c. Because the applicant has also not caused any impediments in the proceedings of the trial.
d. Because the Order Sheet reveals that the applicant remained present before the trial court on many dates and on some of the dates, his exemption application under section 228 BNSS (corresponding section 205 Cr.P.C.) has been allowed by the Learned Trial Court.
e. Because the subsequent/substantial changed circumstances which has now emerged after 02.09.2024 when this Hon'ble Court has rejected the Bail Cancellation Applications of two other co-accused persons.
f. Because the perusal of the ordersheet of Ld. Trial Court reflects that infact, none of the accused have caused any delay in the trial court proceedings."
6- Referring the order-sheet of the trial court, it is argued that neither applicant nor other co-accused caused any impediment in the trial proceedings. The applicant has preferred his discharge application without obtaining documents under Section 230 of B.N.S.S. (corresponding Section 207 Cr.P.C.) on the basis of material facts of the case, therefore, applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
7- On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant by contending that there are four accused in this case but on the dates, some of them appeared while others move exemption application and as such, they in collusion with each other and in a pre-planned manner, lingering on the trial proceedings on one pretext or the other and before the trial court, only general dates are being fixed without any effective proceedings. Much emphasis has been given by contending that applicant cannot be said to be a law abiding person and he is habitual to violate the orders passed by the Courts. He further submits that despite the orders dated 5.7.2024 passed by this Court and order dated 29.7.2024 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court, he did not surrender. The accused persons after filing discharge applications repeatedly moving exemption applications, hence, general dates for hearing on discharge application are being fixed since 18.1.2024. Lastly it is submitted that there is no new ground in the instant third anticipatory bail application. All the grounds which have been raised in this third anticipatory bail application have already been considered by this Court in the order dated 5.7.2024 and 25.10.2024, hence, the instant anticipatory bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.
8- Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that F.I.R. was lodged on 23.7.2021 against four persons, namely, Anand Kumar Singh alias Baba Trikaldarshi, Rajiv Lochan Paliwal, applicant-Navneet Singh Bhadauriya and Vijay Pal Prajapati, in which after culmination of investigation, charge-sheet dated 01.6.2022 was submitted against the applicant and co-accused Vijay Pal Prajapati as well as Rajiv Lochan Paliwal and at that time, investigation against Anand Kumar Singh alias Baba Trikaldarshi was pending and later on supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against him. On the said charge-sheet dated 01.6.2024, the trial court took cognizance on 19.7.2022. The applicant was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 18.11.2022 during trial, subject to condition No. (i) that applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of trial and shall regularly attend the court on each dates unless inevitable. Thereafter, applicant appeared before the trial court on 20.1.2023 and submitted his bail bonds, which were verified on the same day. Subsequently, on account of violation of said condition No. (i) of order dated 18.11.2022, the anticipatory bail of the applicant has been cancelled by this Court vide order dated 5.7.2024. Since the main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that none of the accused persons have caused any delay in the trial proceeding, therefore, this Court feels that it would be appropriate to mention the relevant facts regarding appearance and non-appearance of the applicant, co-accused Rajeev Lochan Paliwal and Vijay Pal Prajapati before the trial Court after granting anticipatory bail to them, as reflect from the order-sheet of the trial court, which are as under:-
About Applicant- Navneet Bhadauria
8.1- On 30.1.2023, 16.2.2023, 29.3.2023, 12.4.2023, 17.10.2023, 15.5.2024 and 21.5.2024, applicant was present before the trial Court.
8.2- On 28.2.2023, 14.3.2023, 26.4.2023, 13.7.2023, 6.5.2023, 18.5.2023, 13.5.2023, 14.6.2023, 28.6.2023, 27.7.2023, 10.8.2023, 21.8.2023, 17.11.2023, 18.1.2024, 29.1.2024, 13.2.2024, 21.2.2024, 1.4.2024 and 15.4.2024, applicant did not appear before the trial Court and moved exemption application.
8.3- On 17.10.2023 applicant filed his discharge application.
8.4- On 22.7.2024, non-bailable warrant was issued against the applicant.
8.5- On 17.8.2024, counsel for the applicant appeared and pressed an application under Section 88 Cr.P.C. and another application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. on which, applicant was directed to appear in person on the next date, i.e., 21.8.2024, but despite having knowledge, he did not appear in person and his aforesaid applications were dismissed vide order 21.8.2024, which was challenged by the applicant in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 7515 of 2024 but the same too has been dismissed vide order dated 30.08.2024. The order dated 30.08.2024 has also attained finality. Thereafter on the next dates, i.e., 30.8.2024, 10.9.2024 and 18.9.2024, the applicant again did not appear.
8.6- On 23.9.2024, Non Bailable Warrant had been issued against the applicant fixing 30.10.2024 for further proceeding/framing of charge and disposal of discharge application but on 30.10.2024, applicant also did not appear.
8.7- Order-sheet clearly reflects that on 17.10.2023, applicant moved discharge application, on which, argument on discharge application was partly heard on 15.5.2024 and next date was fixed for 21.5.2024 for further argument, but on account of non-cooperation of the applicant, till date, discharge application has not been decided.
8.8- Order-sheet also reflects that vide order dated 12.4.2023, further date was fixed for 24.4.2023 in presence of applicant and other co-accused, namely, Anand Singh as well as Rajiv Lochan for giving documents to them, but thereafter, applicant became continuously absent from 24.4.2023, therefore, it cannot be said that the documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were not supplied to him within reasonable time.
About co-accused- Rajeev Lochan Paliwal
8.9- The order sheet of the trial court indicates that co-accused Rajeev Lochan Paliwal was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 20.10.2022, thereafter he was present on 14.11.2022, 28.11.2022, 9.12.2022, 22.12.2022, 4.1.2023, 17.1.2023, 30.1.2023, 16.2.2023, 28.2.2023, 14.3.2023, 29.3.2023, 12.4.2023 and 31.5.2023, 13.7.2023, 27.7.2023, 10.9.2024, 18.9.2024, 23.9.2024.
8.10- On 24.4.2023, 6.5.2023, 18.5.2023, 14.06.2023, 28.6.2023, 10.8.2023, 21.8.2023, 17.11.2023, 29.1.2024, 13.2.2024, 21.2.2024, 1.4.2024, 1.4.2024, 21.5.2024, 30.10.2024 he did not appear and moved his exemption application.
About co-accused- Vijay Pal Prajapati
8.11- So far as co-accused Vijay Pal Prajapati is concerned, he was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 16.01.2024. Thereafter he appeared before the trial Court on 15.4.2024, 15.5.2024, 10.9.2024, 18.9.2024 and 30.10.2024.
8.12- On 18.1.2024, 29.1.2024, 13.2.2024, 21.2.2024, 1.4.2024, 21.5.2024 and 6.6.2024 he did not appear and moved his exemption application.
8.13- The co-accused Rajiv Lochan Paliwal and Vijay Pal Prajapati have also filed their discharge applications on 30.8.2024, which are also pending. Co-accused Anand Kumar Singh moved a discharge application on 10.9.2024 and they were given document relating to supplementary police report. On account of non-appearance of all the accused persons together, final hearing on their discharge applications could not take place and only general dates are being fixed which amounts to creating hindrance in smooth proceeding of the trial.
8.14- So far as observation made by the co-ordinate Bench in para 13 of the order dated 02.09.2024 that on none of the dates, the case could not proceed because of absence of the accused persons is concerned, I find that the trial Court in the order dated 22.12.2022 has mentioned inter alia that anticipatory bail of accused Vijay Pal Prajapati has been rejected by the Sessions Judge and he is not appearing, therefore, trial is being affected and non-bailable warrant has been issued against him.
9- On 24.01.2025, following order was passed by this Court:-
"The case is taken up through video conferencing from Allahabad.
After advancing several arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has given stretch by contending that the applicant is not causing any impediment in smooth running of the case before the trial court.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant submits that on account of non co-operation of the applicant and other co-accused persons, proceedings before the trial court is being lingered on. He also submits that non-bailable warrants are also going on against the applicant.
I find that the applicant has filed the order sheet of the trial court up to 30.10.2024.
In view of the above, this Court feels that it would be appropriate to call for a report from the concerned Presiding Officer.
Let a report be called for from the concerned Presiding Officer with regard to present status of trial of the applicant and aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
List this case again on 07.02.2025 along with the report of concerned Presiding Officer."
10- Pursuant to order of this Court dated 24.1.2025, trial court has submitted its report, which is reproduced hereinunder:-
"प्रेषक,
पीयूष त्रिपाठी,
अपर मुख्य न्यायिक मजिस्ट्रेट द्वितीय,
कक्ष संख्या 26, लखनऊ
सेवा में,
द्वारा:
उपनिबंधक (क्रिमिनल बेल), माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, खंडपीठ लखनऊ, लखनऊ।
माननीय जनपद न्यायाधीश, लखनऊ।
विषयः क्रिमिनल एंटीसिपेटरी बेल एप्लीकेशन नंबर 2706/2024, नवनीत भदौरिया बनाम उ.प्र. राज्य में पारित आदेश दिनांकित 24.01.2025 के माध्यम से माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा मु.अ.सं. 363/2021, अंतर्गत धारा 406, 420, 323, 504, 506, 467, 468, 471 भा.दं.सं., थाना विभूतिखंड, जनपद लखनऊ के संबंध में मांगी गयी स्टेटस रिपोर्ट के संबंध में।
महोदय,
माननीय महोदय द्वारा उपरोक्त विषयक के संबंध में मांगी गयी आख्या के संबंध में ससम्मान अवगत कराना है कि मु.अ.सं. 363/2021, अंतर्गत धारा 406, 420, 323, 504, 506, 467, 468, 471 भा.दं.सं., थाना विभूतिखंड, जनपद लखनऊ, सरकार बनाम विजयपाल प्रजापति एवं अन्य की पत्रावली इस न्यायालय में लंबित है।
पत्रावली के अवलोकन पर पाया गया कि प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में अभियुक्तगण विजय पाल प्रजापति, राजीव लोचन पालीवाल एवं नवनीत भदौरिया के विरुद्ध अंतर्गत धारा 406, 420, 323, 504, 506, 467, 468, 471 भा.दं.सं. में आरोपपत्र दाखिल किया गया, जिस पर संज्ञान दिनांक 19.07.2022 को लिया गया। अभियुक्तगण के विरुद्ध सम्मन जारी किया गया, जिसके उपरांत प्रकरण में अभियुक्त आनन्द कुमार सिंह के विरुद्ध अनुपूरक आरोपपत्र न्यायालय में दाखिल किया गया, जिस पर दिनांक 08.09.2022 को प्रसंज्ञान लिया गया। पत्रावली पर अभियुक्तगण की उपस्थिति हेतु आदेशिकाएं जारी की गयीं। माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा आदेश दिनांकित 18.11.2022 नवनीत भदौरिया की अग्रिम जमानत प्रदान की गयी। अभियुक्त द्वारा दिनांक 20.01.2023 को जमानतनामा न्यायालय में दाखिल किया गया, जिसे तस्दीक किया गया। पत्रावली अन्य अभियुक्तगण की हाजिरी हेतु नियत हुई, जिसके उपरांत माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा आदेश दिनांकित 05.07.2024 द्वारा अभियुक्त नवनीत भदौरिया की अंतरिम जमानत निरस्त करते हुए अभियुक्त नवनीत भदौरिया को अविलंब न्यायालय के समक्ष आत्मसमर्पण करने हेतु आदेशित किया गया, जिसके उपरांत अभियुक्त नवनीत भदौरिया द्वारा व्यक्तिगत रूप से न्यायालय में उपस्थित न होते हुए उनके द्वारा न्यायालय में जरिए अधिवक्ता प्रार्थनापत्र अंतर्गत धारा 88 व 70 (2) दं.प्र.सं. प्रस्तुत किया गया, जिसे इस न्यायालय द्वारा दिनांक 21.08.2024 को निरस्त करते हुए अभियुक्त नवनीत भदौरिया को माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांकित 05.07.2024 के अनुक्रम में अविलंब आत्मसमर्पण करने हेतु आदेशित किया गया। पत्रावली दिनांक 30.08.2024 के लिए नियत की गयी। उक्त तिथि तथा उसके उपरांत नियत तिथि 10.09.2024 तथा 18.09.2024 को अभियुक्त नवनीत भदौरिया न्यायालय में उपस्थित नहीं आये। जिसके उपरांत दिनांक 23.09.2024 को अभियुक्त नवनीत भदौरिया के विरुद्ध एन.बी. डब्लू, जारी किया गया। माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा आदेश दिनांकित 25.10.2024 द्वारा अभियुक्त नवनीत भदौरिया का द्वितीय अग्रिम जमानत प्रार्थनापत्र निरस्त किया गया। जिसके पश्चात अभियुक्त नवनीत भदौरिया द्वारा दिनांक 29.11.2024 को जरिए अधिवक्ता न्यायालय में अभियुक्त द्वारा माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय में दाखिल पेटीशन फॉर स्पेशल लीव टू अपील (क्रि०) नंबर 15856/2024 में पारित आदेश दिनांकित 22.11.2024 की प्रति प्रस्तुत की गयी। माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के उक्त आदेश के अवलोकन पर यह पाया गया कि माननीय उच्बतम न्यायालय द्वारा उक्त बाद में याचिकाकर्ता को अंतरिम राहत प्रदान करते हुए दो सप्ताह के अंदर नवीन प्रार्थनापत्र प्रस्तुत करने हेतु समय प्रदान किया गया था, जिस पर इस न्यायालय द्वारा दिनांक 29.11.2025 को आदेश पारित करते हुए माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के उपरोक्त आदेश के अनुक्रम में उपरोक्त वाद में अभियुक्त के विरुद्ध जारी कोई भी प्रोसेस अदम तामीला वापस कराते हुए अभियुक्त को आदेशित किया गया कि यदि 15 दिवस के अंदर उसके द्वारा कोई प्रार्थनापत्र माननीय उच्च न्यायालय में दाखिल किया जाता है तो उसके संबंध में और माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा उक्त प्रार्थनापत्र पर, जो भी आदेश पारित किया जाता है, उससे न्यायालय को अविलंब अवगत कराये। परंतु अभी तक अभियुक्त नवनीत भदौरिया द्वारा न तो कोई आदेश दाखिल किया गया है और न ही वह न्यायालय उपस्थित आ रहा है। जिस कारण उपरोक्त वाद में अग्रिम कार्यवाही संभव नहीं हो पा रही है। शेष अभियुक्तगण विजय पाल प्रजापति, राजीव लोचन पालीवाल एवं आनन्द कुमार सिंह न्यायालय उपस्थित आ रहे हैं। पत्रावली वास्ते हाजिरी दिनांक 01.03.2024 को नियत है।
अतः महोदय से ससम्मान निवेदन है कि उपरोक्त स्टेटस रिपोर्ट माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के समक्ष रखने की कृपा करें।
दिनांकः 05.02.2025"
11- Here it is relevant to mention that parameters for granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and cancellation of bail/ anticipatory bail are different. The order dated 18.11.2022 granting anticipatory bail to the applicant was earlier cancelled vide order of this Court dated 5.7.2024 only on the ground of his non-cooperation before the trial court. In this third anticipatory bail application also, there is no clear averment/undertaking of the applicant that in future he will appear in person on each and every dates fixed before the trial court. Order-sheet reflects that charge-sheet has been submitted in this case on 1.6.2022, on which trial court took cognizance on 19.7.2022, but on account of non-cooperation of applicant adopting different modus operandi in collusion with co-accused persons, till date, no effective proceeding could take place. Hence, this Court feels that it is a case of misuse of liberty of anticipatory bail, hence I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
12-In view of the above, the instant third anticipatory bail application of applicant-Navneet Bhadauria @ Navneet Bhadauriya sans merit and is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 7.2.2025
Shubham
