Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 413 (ALL)

Pappu v. State of U. P.

2014-02-06

RAMESH SINHA

body2014
JUDGMENT Ramesh Sinha,J. Heard Dr. Arun Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.K. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. During the pendency of the present bail application, another bail application, i.e., Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 19536 of 2013 was moved on behalf of the applicant in the same case crime, i.e., Case Crime No. 936 of 2012 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., police station Aonla, district Bareilly by concealing the fact of filing of the present bail application. The said application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 11.7.2013 and the applicant was released on bail. On coming to know about the said concealment of fact, this Court on 9.9.2013 has issued notices to the deponent of the present case as well as deponent of the aforesaid bail application, i.e., Babu Ram and Smt. Heera Kali to show cause as to why the court may not proceed against her for perjury giving wrong affidavit before this Court and to remain present in the Court. 3. In pursuance of the order dated 9.9.2013, the deponent of both the cases, i.e., Babu Ram and Smt. Heera Kali have filed their personal affidavit and are present in the Court today. They are identified by their counsel Dr. Arun Srivastava. 4. In the affidavit filed by Smt. Heera Kali, mother of the applicant, it is stated that due to some communication gap between with her son-in-law Babu Ram, who is the deponent of the present case, she could not know about filing of the present bail application on account of which the mistake of filing of another bail application has been occurred. 5. In paras- 7 and 8 of the affidavit filed by Babu Ram, brother-in-law of the applicant, it is stated that he could not inform his mother-in-law Smt. Heera Kali about filing of the present bail application. 6. Per contra, learned AGA on the other hand argued that the deponents of the two bail applications are the mother of the applicant and real brother-in-law of the applicant and being the close relatives, it is not possible to believe that both of them were unaware about the fact of filing of the present bail application as well as subsequent bail application in which the applicant has been released on bail. 7. I have perused the affidavits filed by the deponents of the two bail application. 8. 7. I have perused the affidavits filed by the deponents of the two bail application. 8. In my opinion the explanation given by Smt. Heera Kali, mother of the applicant who is the deponent in the subsequent bail application which has been allowed by this Court on 11.7.2013, i.e., during the pendency of the present bail application, is not at all acceptable. The explanation given by the deponent Babu Ram who is the real brother-in-law of the applicant in para no.7 and 8 of the affidavit filed today that he could not inform his mother-in-law Smt. Heera Kali about the pendency of present bail application before this Court due to his 'business' is also not acceptable as the same itself shows some mischievous and foul play going in his mind. I am of the opinion that he was very much conscious about the fact that the present bail application has been ordered on 21.5.2013 by another Bench of this Court to be fixed for 5.8.2013, hence another bail application was subsequently filed on behalf of the applicant in which the deponent Smt. Heera Kali is the mother of the applicant of which notice was given to the Government Advocate on 18.6.2013 being Notice No.17668 of 2013 i.e. criminal misc. bail application no.19536 of 2013 Pappu Vs. State of U.P. which was allowed by this Court on 11.7.2013 and a false averment was made in para 2 of the affidavit of the said bail application that "this is the first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant in case crime no.936 of 2012 u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Aonla, district Bareilly" 9. Thus the explanation given by deponents of the two bail applications are found to be unsatisfactory. They have misused the process of law and further played fraud on the Court for obtaining a suitable order in favour of the applicant. The Court taking judicial notice of their mischievous activities desired to proceed against them u/s 340 Cr.P.C for playing fraud on the Court as well as swearing a false affidavit before this Court but the learned counsel for the applicant lastly prayed that some exemplary cost be imposed on the above said two deponents as they are illiterate persons. 10. The Court taking judicial notice of their mischievous activities desired to proceed against them u/s 340 Cr.P.C for playing fraud on the Court as well as swearing a false affidavit before this Court but the learned counsel for the applicant lastly prayed that some exemplary cost be imposed on the above said two deponents as they are illiterate persons. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case an exemplary cost of Rs.15,000/- each is imposed on the deponent Smt. Heera Kali of the bail application no.19536 of 2013 and Babu Ram deponent of the present bail application for not approaching this Court with clean hands 11. Let the applicant Pappu involved in Case Crime No.936 of 2012, u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Aonla, district Bareilly be released on bail subject to the condition that the two deponents namely Smt. Heera Kali and Babu Ram deposit Rs.15,000/- each before the C.J.M. concerned the applicant shall be released on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: - (i) The applicant will continue to attend and cooperate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release. (ii) The applicant will not tamper with the witnesses. (iii) The applicant will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail. 13. It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted. 14. If the amount so deposited, shall be remitted to the District Legal Cell Authority of District Bareilly.