Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3528 (ALL)

Vikalp Srivastava @ Golu v. State of U. P.

2016-10-21

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2016
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. Heard Shri Tarun Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Deepak Dubey, counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State. This is a second bail application filed by the applicant seeking bail in case crime no. 260 of 2015, under Sections 364-A, 120-B, 395, 342 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Allahabad. The first bail application had been rejected by me vide order dated 29.01.2016. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that this is a mercy petition. The applicant has remained in custody for more than seven months. He is, therefore, liable to be released on bail. The next submission made is that one of the points which appears to have weighed on the mind of the Court, while rejecting the first bail application was that another similar case of kidnapping, registered against the applicant, had not been disclosed in the bail application. He submits that it was not a case of kidnapping. It was, at best a case of wrongful confinement and restraint and that Section 364 IPC had been added subsequently in the said case. Initially the first information report in this other case, had not been registered under Section 364 IPC. The first information report in this case had been lodged by the abductee himself and, therefore, it could not be a case of kidnapping. Shri Deepak Dubey has contended that the bail application is liable to be dismissed as no new ground or fresh material has been brought on record which would entitle the application for bail. He has also refuted the submission made that the other case, which has not been disclosed in the first bail application, had not been registered also under Section 364 from very beginning. He states that this section is mentioned in the bail rejection order. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and upon a perusal of the record, this Court finds substance in the submission of learned counsel for the first informant that no new material or fresh ground has been made out in this second bail application. There should be some new/ fresh material which was not in existence when the first bail application was considered to entitle the applicant for bail. No such plea or evidence has been brought on record. There should be some new/ fresh material which was not in existence when the first bail application was considered to entitle the applicant for bail. No such plea or evidence has been brought on record. Even as regards the second submission, I do not find any merit therein. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the other case against the applicant, was not one of kidnapping right from its inception, when the FIR was lodged cannot be accepted in the absence of any material on record to indicate that Section 364 IPC was added subsequently. Moreover, the FIR in this case, copy whereof is on page 38 of this bail application reveals that it is under Section 364 IPC as well In view of the above, no case for allowing the second bail application is made out. The second bail application is rejected.