Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1609 (ALL)

Mohit Upadhyay v. State of U. P.

2023-07-07

KRISHAN PAHAL

body2023
JUDGMENT : KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants , Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Subhash Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant and Sri P.K. Giri, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material placed on record. 3. The applicants have approached this Court directly without taking recourse to the Sessions Court, Kanpur Nagar. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there is an exceptional ground for the applicants as the brother-in-law of the informant Radhey Krishna Upadhyay is an practising advocate at Kanpur Nagar and is an influential person who alongwith his juniors pressurises the applicants and there is every apprehension of the applicants being assaulted by them. 5. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Criminal Case No. 70490 of 2021 (State vs. Mohit Upadhyay) arising out of Case Crime No. 22 of 2021 registered under Sections 308, 341, 504 and 506 IPC at Police Station-Barra, District Kanpur Nagar with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail. PROSECUTION STORY: 6. The applicants are stated to have assaulted the wife of the informant on 10.08.2016 at about 10:00 PM by danda, thereby caused grievous injuries to her. RIVAL CONTENTIONS (Arguments on behalf of applicants) 7. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that initially a case was instituted under Section 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. as an NCR only and the said NCR is delayed by three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has further stated that after much delay of about three years, an order under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. has been passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar on 16.11.2019 to investigate the matter. After investigation, the final report (charge-sheet) has been filed against the applicants in added Section of 308 I.P.C. Learned counsel has further stated that the injury report is suspicious as initially the injured person was admitted to a private hospital and was treated there and was then referred to a government hospital and at the government hospital, it was observed that there was a stitched wound on her left parietal region of head and another injury was abrasion which was simple in nature. 8. 8. Learned counsel has further stated that there is an observation made by the Investigating Officer that the informant had telephonically tried to pressurize him by saying that he is a journalist, as such the case may be transformed under Section 308 I.P.C. Despite, the said observation, under the duress of the informant, the present final report (charge-sheet) has been filed under Section 308 I.P.C. The applicants and the informant are having a long dispute pending between them. Learned counsel has further stated that in all eleven cases have been instituted against the applicants by the informant and his family members, which stands explained as four of those cases were instituted as an NCR, one is complaint case and other six cases are between the same parties. The applicants have annexed the orders of two cases mentioned in the criminal history. There is no other criminal history of the applicants except the said cases. 9. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicants had challenged the said final report (charge-sheet) before this Court by filing a petition U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15394 of 2021 and this Court was pleased to grant interim protection to the applicants, but later on, on 14.02.2023, the said petition was dismissed on merits and the interim protection was set aside. Learned counsel has further stated that they have challenged the said order of rejection before the Apex Court by preferring S.L.P. No. 5848 of 2023, which is still pending. (Arguments on behalf of informant/State) 10. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that there is no exceptional ground present before this Court to entertain the present anticipatory bail application as there is no FIR/medical report to corroborate the allegations against the relative of the informant. Learned Senior Counsel has further stated that the applicants are the criminals as they have been involved in repeatedly committing similar nature of crimes. The victim herein is a lady and had sustained grievous injuries to her head. The applicants have criminal history of eleven cases and they have not property explained the said criminal cases as they have not annexed the bail orders of other cases. 11. The victim herein is a lady and had sustained grievous injuries to her head. The applicants have criminal history of eleven cases and they have not property explained the said criminal cases as they have not annexed the bail orders of other cases. 11. Learned Senior Counsel has further stated that the petition U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been decided once for all and the case, being of assault, is squarely covered with paragraph 43 of the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Shivam vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2021 SCC Online All 264 as such the applicants are not entitled for anticipatory bail. Learned Senior Counsel has further stated that there is no interim order in the said S.L.P. and the pendency cannot be taken into consideration at this point of time. 12. Learned A.G.A. has also vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that there is criminal history of eleven cases assigned to the applicants. CONCLUSION: 13. Taking into consideration the fact as mentioned by the counsel for the applicant that there is apprehension in their minds to the fact that they may be assaulted at the premises of the District Court, Kanpur Nagar, as already stated by the counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been granted anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 99 of 2017, under Sections 307, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Swaroop Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar and they have already furnished their bail bonds at the court concerned, the said argument of having apprehension of being assaulted at the District Court, Kanpur Nagar pales into insignificance. 14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the judgment of this Court passed in Shivam (supra) and also the fact that there is criminal history of eleven cases assigned to the applicants, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected. 15. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of anticipatory bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.