Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1633 (ALL)

Chaudhary Pratap Singh v. State Of U. P.

2022-10-11

KRISHAN PAHAL

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mehul Khare, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. 2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Criminal Complaint Case no. 1407 of 2018, under Sections 323, 376-D IPC, Police Station-Bhopa, District-Muzaffarnagar, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. PROSECUTION STORY:- 3. The complainant Smt. Sangeeta Kaur W/o Dulli Singh had filed a complaint before the Magistrate concerned on 16.11.2016 with the allegation that the complainant is a dalit lady and she was very well conversant with the family of Sushil Chaudhary S/o Dharmveer Singh. The said Sushil is said to have introduced the complainant to one Pratap Singh (applicant) S/o Govind Singh of District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand. It was told to the complainant that the applicant is the Chairman of Urban Bank Kashipur and also the Manager of Kisan Inter College, Kundeshwari, District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand and the applicant is said to have promised the complainant to get her a nice job. On 24.9.2016 the said Sushil Chaudhary told the husband of complainant that on 25.9.2016 his relative had to come to Morna, Muzaffar Nagar for some personal work. The complainant is said to have reached the Morna Petrol Pump, Muzaffar Nagar, at 12 noon of 25.9.2016. The applicant is said to have come by car No. UK 18 6677 alongwith Sushil and one Deepak of Gurgaon. The husband of complainant is said to have left for his house leaving her behind. The complainant accompanied the applicant and the said persons in their car towards Shukrtaal, Muzaffar Nagar. The applicant and his colleagues got drunk on the way. The applicant is said to have started misbehaving with the complainant. On her protest, she was beaten up and abused and all the aforesaid persons are said to have committed gang rape with her. The applicant is said to have video recorded the same in his mobile. After the said act the complainant is said to have been thrown at Partapur byepass, Meerut. After reaching her house, the complainant informed her husband about the incident, who went to the police station the next day but the police did not take any action whatsoever. The complaint case was filed as such. RIVAL CONTENTIONS:- 4. After the said act the complainant is said to have been thrown at Partapur byepass, Meerut. After reaching her house, the complainant informed her husband about the incident, who went to the police station the next day but the police did not take any action whatsoever. The complaint case was filed as such. RIVAL CONTENTIONS:- 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the niece of the applicant namely, Priyanka D/o Lalit Kumar had solemnized a love marriage with one Vipul Kumar many years ago. The applicant had opposed the said love marriage of his niece Priyanka. With the passage of time, the brother of the applicant i.e. father of Priyanka accepted the said love marriage of his daughter and his relations with her husband Vipul Kumar became cordial thereon. Learned counsel has further stated that the said Vipul Kumar, husband of his niece is having criminal antecedents as in all, nine cases are pending against him at various places in West UP and Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand. The said son-in-law, Vipul Kumar, tried his best to grab the ancestral property of the applicant and his brothers. Learned counsel has further stated that the aforesaid complaint has been filed at the behest of the said niece and her husband Vipul Kumar just to pressurize the applicant, so that he may not hinder them in getting the property of the applicant transferred to him. 5. Learned counsel has further stated that the complainant herein had moved an application alongwith the affidavit before the trial court on 20.4.2017 to not to proceed against the accused applicant as the person who had committed rape with her was some other person with the same name Pratap Singh. The said application is annexed as Annexure-12 to the affidavit. Learned counsel has further stated that the complainant and her husband Dulli Singh had moved an application supported with the affidavit before the trial court on 17.1.2018 stating therein that the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on record of the trial court is false as the same has been recorded at the instance of Priyanka and her husband Vipul. The said application is annexed as Annexure No. 16 to the affidavit. 6. The said application is annexed as Annexure No. 16 to the affidavit. 6. Learned counsel has further stated that the complainant had further moved an application before the trial court on 22.1.2018 to close the proceedings of complaint case against all the accused persons by rejecting the summoning order. Learned counsel has further stated that the complainant again moved an application before the trial court on 7.2.2018 for providing police security as she felt danger to her life. 7. Learned counsel has further stated that the trial court on 3.8.2018 had passed an order asking the complainant to issue process against each accused person as she had levelled allegations against two different persons with same name Pratap Singh. The said order of the trial court was challenged by the complainant before the revisional court in Criminal Revision No. 245 of 2018 and the same was dismissed on merits. 8. Learned counsel has stated that the trial court has issued non-bailable warrant against the applicant and other accused persons on 2.3.2021 without giving any cogent reasons for it. 9. Learned counsel has submitted that the applicant had lodged an FIR at police station, Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand under Sections 386, 388, 389 and 120-B IPC against the complainant and she was arrested as accused and her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein the complainant has categorically stated that the applicant and Sushil had not committed any kind of sexual assault with her and a false case has been filed against them. 10. Learned counsel has further argued that after thorough investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against four accused persons including the complainant. 11. Learned counsel has further submitted that the complainant herein is used to filing frivolous FIRs as she had filed an FIR at P.S. Gajraula, District J.P. Nagar, under Sections 452, 342, 506 IPC and 3(2)(Va) SC/ST Act at Case Crime No. 169 of 2018. It has been stated that in the said FIR, a closure report was filed by the police and even the complainant had filed the application before the Magistrate concerned to accept the said closure report which was accepted by it on 14.7.2018. It has been stated that in the said FIR, a closure report was filed by the police and even the complainant had filed the application before the Magistrate concerned to accept the said closure report which was accepted by it on 14.7.2018. Another witness produced in the present complaint case namely, Sumit Kumar, had also lodged an FIR No. 273 of 2019, at P.S. Kotwali Mandi, District Saharanpur under Sections 328 and 506 IPC, in which also, the closure report was filed and he had filed a protest petition to the said closure report. Despite the said protest petition dated 23.11.2020 the court was pleased to accept the closure report vide order dated 20.2.2021. Another close friend of the complainant, Smt. Usha had also filed an FIR at P.S. Simbhaoli, District Hapur as FIR No. 308 of 2019 in which the final report has been submitted before the trial court, which is pending adjudication. The said Vipul Kumar had also filed a complaint case against the applicant in the court of A.C.J.M.-I, Bijnor on 16.3.2020, which was dismissed vide order dated 4.3.2021 by the trial court. Learned counsel has next stated that all the cases against the applicant have been filed out of vengeance and the parties are inimical to each other and there are various cases and cross cases filed against each other. 12. Learned counsel has next stated that the applicant has a criminal history of five cases, which has been explained. He has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 287 of 2017 and State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant, Sri Mehul Khare, has vehemently opposed the bail application and has stated that the applicant has not come with clean hands as he had challenged the summoning order by filing a Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 13983 of 2017. The said petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 5.5.2017. 14. Learned counsel has next stated that another application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 42944 of 2017 was also filed before the applicant which was again dismissed. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant had filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court which was also dismissed vide order dated 6.4.2018. 14. Learned counsel has next stated that another application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 42944 of 2017 was also filed before the applicant which was again dismissed. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant had filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court which was also dismissed vide order dated 6.4.2018. 15. Learned counsel for the complainant has stated that applicant is a powerful person of the locality. Learned counsel has also stated that NBW was issued against the applicant on 2.3.2021 and the proceedings under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have been completed against the applicant. The applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail in light of the judgment of this Court passed in Shivam vs. State of U.P. and another reported in AirOnline 2021 All 484, and also the fact that the applicant is having criminal antecedents. The allegations in FIR are serious in nature. CONCLUSION:- 16. The aforesaid case is squarely covered by paragraph 45 of the judgment of this Court passed in Shivam vs. State of U.P. and another (supra), as it is an admitted fact that the applicant had agitated the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this Court twice and failed. The allegations in FIR are serious in nature. CONCLUSION:- 16. The aforesaid case is squarely covered by paragraph 45 of the judgment of this Court passed in Shivam vs. State of U.P. and another (supra), as it is an admitted fact that the applicant had agitated the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this Court twice and failed. Paragraph 45 of the judgment is being quoted hereinbelow:- “45) When the anticipatory bail is sought by an accused after submission of charge-sheet against him, the following particulars are required to be given in the anticipatory bail application to arrive at correct conclusion whether the charge-sheet submitted against the accused can withstand the requirements of law of investigation as considered above and also the consideration made by the Apex Court in various judgments in this regard :- (i) The charge-sheet along with the entire material collected by the Investigating Officer should be made part of the anticipatory bail application; (ii) Clear pleading with reference to the material on record should be made stating under which sub-paragraph of paragraph 41 stated hereinabove, the case of the applicant is covered; (iii) Clear pleading should also be made that the case of the applicant is not barred by paragraph 43 mentioned aforesaid; (iv) There should be clear averment in the affidavit in support of the anticipatory bail application that the applicant has not challenged the charge-sheet before this Court in any proceeding; (v) In case the applicant has approached this Court by way of any other proceedings after submission of charge-sheet and has obtained any order in any proceedings, the same shall be disclosed in the anticipatory bail application; and (vi) Clear pleading should be made in the anticipatory bail application that after submission of charge-sheet, the applicant has not approached any court and no such proceeding is pending.” 17. The N.B.W. and proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. are already complete and the applicant is having criminal antecedents to his credit. The allegations against the applicant are of serious nature. The case law of Bhajan Lal (supra) do not apply to the present case. 18. The N.B.W. and proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. are already complete and the applicant is having criminal antecedents to his credit. The allegations against the applicant are of serious nature. The case law of Bhajan Lal (supra) do not apply to the present case. 18. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant and the case laws produced by learned counsel for applicant, I do not find that the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case. 19. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is rejected.