Allahabad High Court
Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bhanu, S/O- Chote ... vs State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home, ... on 10 February, 2025
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:23499
Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1018 of 2024
Applicant :- Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bhanu, S/O- Chote Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home, Lucknow
Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. Vishnu Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Arun Kumar Sharma,G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Dr. Vishnu Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and have been heard and perused the records.
3. This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant- Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bhanu, seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0854 of 2023, dt. 08.12.2023, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri, till conclusion of trial before the court below.
4. Initially, when the matter was taken up, this Court passed the following order on 16.02.2024 :-
"1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Vishnu Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant has no concern with the transaction of sale which is referred to in the FIR lodged by Smt. Amita @ Reeta Chauhan and entered into her husband Kamendra Singh and Saroj, the second sale-deed for the same plot executed by Shiv Dutt in favour of Harendra and the third sale-deed by Shiv Dutt in favour of Smt. Jyotasana, para 8 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is argued that the applicant is having no criminal history, para 4 of the affidavit in support of anticipatory bail application has been placed before the Court. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that there is no abetment and instigation of any kind by the applicant which has any nexus with the death of the deceased, the applicant has no mens-rea at all, there is no overt act whatsoever of the applicant, which resulted in the death of the deceased. The applicant has no motive at all to commit the aforesaid offence. While placing para 3 of the supplementary affidavit dated 12.2.2024, it is argued that the investigation in the matter is pending.
4. Matter requires consideration.
5. Notice need not be issued to any of the opposite parties since the first informant and the State are duly represented by learned counsels appearing on their behalf. Both the learned counsels may file counter affidavits within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
6. List this case on 28.03.2024 showing the name of Sri Arun Kumar as learned counsel for the first informant.
7. Till the next date of listing or till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court which ever is earlier, in the event of arrest of the applicant-Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bhanu, involved in Case Crime No.0854 of 2023, dt. 08.12.2023, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri, he shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) 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 to any police officer;
(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.
8. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
9. The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.
10. The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order."
5. On the said date, the case as put forward and recorded in paragraph 3 of the said order was that the investigation in the matter is pending. This Court thus, granted interim protection to the applicant by way of interim anticipatory bail till the next date of listing or till submission of police report, if any under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent court whichever was earlier.
6. Subsequently, the matter was taken up on 28.03.2024, on which date, learned counsel for the first informant informed the court that charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted, on which learned counsel for the applicant prayed for time to verify it. The prayer was granted. The interim protection was further extended and interim anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant till the next date of listing or till submission of police report, if any, under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. whichever is earlier. The order dated 28.03.2024 reads as under:-
"1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Vishnu Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the records.
3. Learned counsel for the first informant informs the Court that charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks time to verify the same.
5. Let the matter be listed on 19th April, 2024.
6. The records show that the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 16.02.2024 by this Court.
7. Till the next date of listing or till submission of police report, if any, under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. whichever is earlier, in the event of arrest of the applicant- Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bhanu, in Case Crime No.0854 of 2023, dt. 08.12.2023, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri, shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police office as and when required;
(ii) 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 to any police office;
(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.
8. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
9. The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.
10. The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order."
7. Then on 08.05.2024, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that vide order dated 04.04.2024, the Superintendent of Police concerned has directed re-investigation in the matter and submitted that as such the investigation in the matter is still going.
8. Learned counsel for the first informant submitted that previously a charge-sheet has been submitted on which the court concerned has taken cognizance on 20.03.2024 and the accused persons have been summoned and thus, the subsequent investigation being further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. would be considered by the trial court concerned at the appropriate stage only. This Court fixing a date for final hearing in the matter, extended the interim anticipatory bail till the next date of listing or till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. whichever is earlier. The order dated 08.05.2024 passed by this Court is quoted herein below :-
"1. The matter is listed today before this Court in the Additional/Unlisted List-4. This matter is nominated to this Bench vide order dated 07.5.2024 of Hon'ble The Chief Justice.
2. Heard Sri Vishnu Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that vide order dated 4.4.2024 Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri has directed re-investigation in the matter. He has placed the report dated 05.4.2024 of In-charge Inspector, Police Station Kotwali Mainpuri, which is annexure no. S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 16.4.2024, to the said effect. He submits that as such investigation in the matter is still going on.
4. Learned counsel for the first informant submits that previously a charge sheet was submitted in the matter on which cognizance was taken by the court concerned on 20.3.2024 and the accused persons were summoned. Subsequent to which the matter has been directed to be investigated further under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. It is submitted that since cognizance has been taken and the accused persons have been summoned but the investigation which is going on now, can only be placed before the court concerned and be seen by the court at the appropriate stage.
5. Learned counsels for the parties submits that the pleadings between them have been exchanged.
6. In view of the same, the matter is ripe for final hearing.
7. Let the matter be listed on 18.7.2024 for final hearing.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been granted interim protection vide order dated 16.2.2024 passed by this Court which has been subsequently extended vide orders dated 28.3.2024 and 19.4.2024.
9. In view of the same, till the next date of listing or till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., whichever is earlier, in the event of arrest of the applicant- Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bhanu, S/O- Chote Singh, involved in case crime no. 854 of 2023, u/s 306 I.P.C., P.S.- Kotwali, District Mainpuri, he shall be released on interim anticipatory bail, on his furnishing a fresh personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police office as and when required;
(ii) 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 to any police officer;
(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.
10. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
11. The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.
12. The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order."
9. On 01.08.2024, the interim protection was extended as earlier, on the the request of learned counsel for the first informant on the ground that he is busy in some other court. On 29.08.2024, the case of the applicant was that subsequent to the direction for re-investigation passed by the Superintendent of Police concerned, the investigation is still going on. Learned counsel for the State was directed to obtain instructions with regards to the stage of investigation and also the fact as to how much more time is needed for investigation since already four months had passed from the date of order of Superintendent of Police concerned. The interim protection as earlier was again extended. The order passed on the said date i.e. 29.08.2024 is extracted herein below :-
"1. Heard Sri Vishnu Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the record.
2. This matter is e-file matter. The portal shows that counter affidavit of the State has been reported to be defective and as such is not loaded on the portal. Learned counsel for the State may get the defects rectified within ten days.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the matter is under investigation subsequent to a direction of re-investigation passed by the Superintendent of Police concerned. It is submitted that the said investigation is still going on.
4. Learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State may obtain instructions within three weeks regarding the stage of investigation. Learned counsel for the State shall further take specific instructions as to how much more time is needed in investigation since it is already more than four months from the date of order of Superintendent of Police concerned.
5. Let the matter be listed on 04.10.2024.
6. The records show that the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 16.02.2024 which was extended vide orders dated 28.03.2024, 19.04.2024, 08.05.2024 and 01.08.2024.
7. Since the applicant has already been granted interim protection vide the said orders, till the next date of listing or till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court which ever is earlier, in the event of arrest of the applicant- Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bhanu, involved in Case Crime No.854 of 2023, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri, he shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing a fresh personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) 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 to any police officer;
(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.
8. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
9. The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order."
10. On 04.10.2024, learned counsel for the applicant was directed to file the complete order-sheet of the court concerned and the interim order as earlier was extended. The matter was thus, observed to be ripe for hearing and due to some technical glitch, learned counsel for the applicant could not address the court and thus the matter has been posted today for final hearing. Interim protection as earlier was again extended. The order passed on 16.01.2025 is extracted herein below :-
"1. List revised.
2. Although Dr. Vishnu Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant is connected on the web link but he is not audible and he is neither able to hear the queries of the Court. Sri Arun Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Shashi Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the State are present in Court and have been heard.
3. The matter is ripe for final hearing but due to no response of learned counsel on the web link, the same cannot be heard.
4. In view of the same, the matter, in the interest of justice, is adjourned for today.
5. Let the matter be listed on 07.02.2025 for final disposal.
6. It is clarified that the applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail but the proceedings against him have not yet been stayed by this Court in the present petition.
7. The records show that the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 16.02.2024 which was extended vide orders dated 28.03.2024, 19.04.2024, 08.05.2024, 01.08.2024, 29.08.2024, 04.10.2024 and 06.11.2024.
8. Since the applicant has already been granted interim protection vide the said orders, till the next date of listing or till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court which ever is earlier, in the event of arrest of the applicant- Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bhanu, involved in Case Crime No.854 of 2023, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri, he shall be released on interim anticipatory bail till the next date of listing or till submission of police report under Section 173(2) whichever is earlier, on furnishing a fresh personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) 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 to any police officer;
(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.
9. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
10. The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant has to ensure that the matter is effectively argued on the next day."
11. Learned counsel for the applicant on merits re-enforced his arguments which were raised on 16.02.2024 and recorded in paragraph 3 of the affidavit. Further he submits that in compliance of the order of Superintendent of Police concerned, the matter is still going on and the further investigation has not yet concluded. He while placing supplementary affidavit dated 06.11.2024 being the order sheet of the trial court concerned from 20.03.2024 to 20.10.2024 has placed the order dated 20.07.2024 passed by C.J.M. Mainpuri and has submitted that the applicant appeared before the court concerned and produced the order passed in the present anticipatory bail application and thus, the court concerned directed to recall of the bailable warrant issued against him on the pretext that the applicant had been granted interim anticipatory bail which has been granted to him by the concerned police station. It is submitted that as such the applicant has cooperated before the trial court. It is submitted that the present anticipatory bail application be thus, allowed and the applicant be granted anticipatory bail as prayed for.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that in compliance of the order dated 29.08.2024, he has received instructions that still one month more time is needed for further investigation. However, learned counsel for the State has placed before the Court paragraph 7 of its counter affidavit dated 14.05.2024 and submitted that the investigation was conducted fairly and after recording of the statement of the first informant and witnesses and also after collecting credible and concrete evidence, a charge sheet dated 09.03.2024 has been submitted against the applicant under Section 306 I.P.C. before the court concerned for consideration. It is submitted that efforts are being made to conclude the investigation as expeditiously as possible. However, on merits, learned counsel for the State opposes the present anticipatory bail application and submits that the charge sheet in the matter has also been submitted on which the court concerned has taken cognizance and any order of further investigation cannot in any manner stall the proceedings of the trial court which has to proceed and the material collected in the further investigation shall be placed before the trial court for its consideration and appropriate stage. It is submitted that the present anticipatory bail is devoid of any merit and be dismissed.
13. Learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the present anticipatory bail application and submitted that the charge sheet in the matter has been submitted on which the court concerned has taken cognizance vide its order dated 20.03.2024. It is submitted that the interim order granted to the applicant was qualified only to be till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., which was initially granted on 16.02.2024 and was extended on subsequent dates by clarifying the same that it is till the next date of listing or till submission of police report, if any, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. whichever is earlier and thus by submission of charge sheet dated 09.03.2024, the same outlives its life. It is submitted that the court concerned took cognizance upon the charge sheet on 20.03.2024 and summoned the accused after which on 20.04.2024 and 29.05.2024 again summons were issued to him since he did not appear before the court concerned. It is further submitted that then the court concerned vide its order dated 25.06.2024 and 20.07.2024, issued bailable warrants against him. It is submitted that again in a second order dated 20.07.2024, the C.J.M. Mainpur noted that due to an interim bail granted to the applicant by this Court in the present anticipatory bail application he has filed his bail bonds before the police station concerned and thus, the bailable warrants as issued were recalled. It is submitted that the court concerned then on 12.09.2024 and 20.10.2024 although took up the matter but adjourned it by mentioning that the proceedings of the case are stayed by the High Court. It is submitted that the second order dated 20.07.2024 of the C.J.M. Mainpuri and the further orders dated 12.09.2024 and 20.10.2024 are totally based on misreading of the orders of this Court.
14. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the first informant that since charge sheet in the matter has already been submitted on which cognizance has been taken, the same cannot be stalled by an order of further investigation as a cognizance once taken is sufficient enough for the court to proceed for the trial unless and until, the same is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction. It is submitted that in the matter the applicant although was granted anticipatory bail till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. subsequent to which charge sheet / police report was submitted on which the court concerned had taken cognizance and summoned him after which he did not appear before the court concerned and then although an order of further investigation was passed by the Superintendent of Police concerned but the same in no manner could have stalled the proceedings of trial and prevented the applicant to appear before the court concerned on the call of summons by it. It is submitted that since the applicant did not appear before the court concerned on the call of summons, the Court issued bailable warrants against him. It was only subsequently that he produced an order of this Court passed in the present anticipatory bail application on which the court concerned passed an order on 20.07.2024 recalling the bailable warrants and observing that he has been released on interim anticipatory bail by the police station concerned. It is submitted that the applicant had been avoiding the process of law and court and as such he is not entitled to any relief.
15. In response and in rejoinder to the arguments opposing the anticipatory bail application, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had appeared before the Investigating Officer concerned and filed his bail bond and subsequently had appeared on 20.07.2024 before the court concerned and apprised it of the order passed in the present anticipatory bail application and thus it cannot be said that he had been avoiding the process of law. Learned counsel for the applicant has further relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Rajesh Pratap Giri vs. State of U.P. : 2021 (0) Supreme (SC) 855 and has placed paragraph nos. 6, 7 and 8 of the same. Further learned counsel for applicant has placed before the Court judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Ashfaq Alam vs. State of Jharkhand : AIR 2023 Supreme Court 3610 and paragraph nos. 5, 6, 9, 10 and 12 of the same and submitted that the filing of the charge sheet subsequent to an order of interim anticipatory bail would not come to an end and the same would continue. It is submitted that as such the present anticipatory bail application be allowed and prayer in the present application be granted.
16. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant had cooperated during investigation and as such after filing of charge sheet / police report, there was no reason for him to surrender and his arrest.
17. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, the facts which emerge out in the matter are that on 16.2.2024 while addressing the matter on merits it was submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the investigation in the matter is pending. This Court after after hearing learned counsels for the parties granted interim anticipatory bail to the applicant till the next date of listing or till submission of police report, if any, under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent court, which ever is earlier. Subsequently, on 28.3.2024 the matter was taken up and learned counsel for the first informant informed the court that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted on which the learned counsel for the applicants prayed for time to verify it. The same was allowed and interim anticipatory bail of the applicant was extended till the next date of list or till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. which ever is earlier. The matter was then taken up on 8.5.2024 on which date it was informed by the learned counsel for the applicant that vide order dated 4.4.2024 the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri has directed reinvestigation in the matter. The report dated 5.4.2024 of the Incharge Police Station, Kotwali, Mainpuri being Annexure SA-1 dated 16.4.2024 to the effect was placed before the court. He submitted that investigation is going on. Learned counsel for the first informant submitted that previously a charge has been submitted on which the court concerned has taken cognizance on 20.3.2024 and the accused persons have been summoned. It was submitted that any investigation subsequent to it which was going on now can only be placed before the court concerned at the appropriate stage. The matter was then directed to be listed for final hearing and till the next date of listing or till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. which ever is earlier, the interim bail was granted to the applicant. In the mean time some other dates were fixed on which interim protection was extended. On 4.1.2024 learned counsel for the informant informed the Court that bailable warrants have been issued against the applicant since he was not appearing before the court concerned. Learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State were granted time to seek instruction regarding the stage of further investigation. The interim anticipatory bail was extended to the applicant in the same terms and conditions as earlier. Subsequently, vide order dated 4.10.2024 on the submission that bailable warrants have been issued against the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant was directed to file complete order sheet of the trial court. The interim anticipatory bail was granted to him in the same terms and conditions as earlier. In compliance of the order dated 4.10.2024 a supplementary affidavit dated 5.11.2024 has been filed by the learned counsel for the applicant annexing with it as Annexure-1 the order sheet of the trial court from 20.3.2024 to 20.10.2024. A perusal of the said order sheet goes to show that vide order dated 20.3.2024 the court concerned took cognizance upon the charge sheet against the applicant under section 306 I.P.C. and summoned him to face trial. Subsequently, on 20.4.2024 and 29.5.2024 he did not appear before the trial court and summons were directed to be issued against him. Subsequently, on 25.6.2024 the court concerned issued bailable warrants of Rs. 10,000/- against him. The same order was passed on 20.7.2024 since he did not appear before the court concerned. On 20.7.2024 another order has been passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpur, a perusal of which goes to show that the court has observed that the accused applicant Bhanu Pratap Singh has filed an application before the court and has submitted that this Court has granted him anticipatory bail on which he has been released till 18.7.2024 and copy of the said order has been produced before the SHO concerned. He prayed that the order of the High Court be taken on record and appropriate orders be passed. The court concerned then considering the order dated 8.5.2024 of this Court directed that the bailable warrant issued earlier be recalled immediately. The matter was then posted for further date. Subsequently, vide the order dated 12.9.2024 the court concerned observed that the proceedings of the said case are stayed by the High Court and thus adjourned it. Even thereafter on 20.10.2024 the proceedings before the trial court were adjourned by observing that the High Court has stayed the proceedings and the latest report was directed to be filed by 10.11.2024. At this stage it would be relevant to note that the orders dated 16.2.2024, 28.3.2024, 8.5.2024, 1.8.2024, 29.8.2024, 4.10.2024, 6.11.2024 and 16.1.2025 of this Court passed in the present anticipatory bail application, although granted interim protection to the applicant accused but the same was specifically mentioned to be till the next date of listing or till submission of police report, if any, under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., which ever is earlier. Thus the same order had its life to a limited period. The court concerned had since taken cognizance on the charge sheet and proceeded in the matter and the accused had not appeared before it and then even if an order of further investigation is passed, the same could not have precluded the trial court to not proceed in the matter. The orders of this Court were specific that the interim anticipatory bail is till the next date of listing or till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., the same could have not been then given benefit to the accused applicant Further there is nothing on record to show that the proceedings of the trial court have been stayed by the High Court as has been mentioned in the orders dated 12.8.2024 and 20.10.2024 of the trial court. Granting of anticipatory bail or interim anticipatory bail to an accused-applicant cannot in any manner be considered to be a stay of the proceedings before the trial court concerned. If even after grant of anticipatory bail or interim anticipatory bail, the accused does not appear and is delaying the proceedings of trial and the concerned court comes to any such conclusion it can always proceed with the matter by passing appropriate orders. Even investigating agency is open to file cancellation of anticipatory bail/interim anticipatory bail in such a circumstances. In the present matter the charge sheet has been submitted on which the court concerned has taken cognizance and summoned the applicant. Any subsequent order of further investigation cannot stall the proceedings of the case which have been taken up subsequent to the filing of the report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. and cognizance on which by the court concerned. The law on the issue is trite. The same has been dealt with by the Apex Court in the case of Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali @ Deepak: (2013) 5 SCC 762. A cognisance once taken stands unless and until set-aside by the court of competent jurisdiction this Court, this is also trite law as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prakash P. Hinduja: (2003) 6 SCC 195.
18. In the present matter the investigation has concluded during the pendency of the present anticipatory bail application. Subsequent to filing of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. the applicant evaded the process of law and did not appear before the court concerned. Although an order for further investigation has been passed by the Superintendent of Police concerned but the same cannot in any way come in the way of the court concerned to proceed with the trial once cognizance has been taken on the police report and it holds good. Knowing of the proceedings against him the applicant did not appear before the court concerned and as such bailable warrants were issued against him. Subsequently he moved an application dated 20.07.2024 informing the court concerned and bringing before it an order dated 08.05.2024 of this Court on which the court concerned recalled the order issuing bailable warrant and directed recall of the said bailable warrant. Subsequent to it the court concerned has based on its wisdom construed the order of anticipatory bail as a stay of proceedings of the case before it as would appear from the order dated 12.09.2024 and 20.10.2024. There is no such order brought on record to show that the proceedings of the trial court have been stayed by the High Court and neither any such order could be produced by the learned counsel for the applicant on asking from him. This Court is at a loss to appreciate the contents of the order dated 12.09.2024 and 20.10.2024 passed by the trial court concerned. Knowing that the proceedings have not been stayed and only interim anticipatory bail was granted by this Court by various orders till the next date of listing or till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. which was initially granted when the investigation was pending subsequent to which charge-sheet has been submitted on which cognizance is taken, the applicant even then appears to have not brought the correct facts before the trial court concerned. Even at the time of passing of order dated 12.09.2024 although the court concerned proceeded to pass an order that the proceedings of the trial have been stayed by the trial court but it was also the duty of the applicant to inform the trial court that no such order has been passed staying the proceedings.
19. Thus this Court comes to an irresistible conclusion that the only effort of the applicant is to not appear before the trial court concerned and some how or the other evade the process of law and delay the proceedings.
20. Looking to the facts of the case and the sequence of events as narrated above and also the fact that even after knowing of the submission of charge-sheet the applicant failed to appear before the trial court and thus bailable warrants were issued against him and then he tried to gain benefit of an order dated 08.05.2024 of this Court which was having its life only till the next date of listing or till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., whichever is earlier, the case would come within the four corners of the fact that the applicant has an intention of evading the process of law and evading the process of Court and the summons.
21. In view of the same, this Court looking to the facts of the case is not inclined to interfere in the matter.
22. The anticipatory bail application is accordingly, dismissed.
23. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
24. A copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned by the Registrar (Compliance) of this Court forthwith.
25. Learned counsel for the State shall also communicate this order to the Investigating Officer concerned who shall in turn communicate it to the trial court concerned forthwith.
Order Date :- 10.2.2025
Manoj/Manish/Abhishek/E-file
(Samit Gopal,J.)
