Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1820 (ALL)

Kamal Singh Yadav v. State of U. P.

2023-07-28

SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV

body2023
JUDGMENT Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 06 of 2023, registered under Section 306 IPC at Police Station- GRP Badaun/Kasganj, District Kasganj, during the pendency of trial. 3. In short, prosecution allegation is that on 31.08.2021 in the morning, husband of the informant had gone from his motorcycle to Bateshwar but did not return till evening, then informant is said to have informed Shikohabad Police Station that her husband had gone to Bateshwar but did not returned and extensive search has been made at all possible places. It is further alleged that on 01.09.2021 in the evening a telephone call was received from Soron District Etah that her husband had died after being hit by a train. It is further alleged that on 03.09.2001 at Shikohabad, informant received a letter by post, and on opening it, informant found a letter written by her husband on the pages of the diary, in which her husband had held responsible, the applicant and one Dr. Mrs. Kanta Srivastava for his death and besides her husband was deeply distressed by the corrupt behaviour of the applicant and one Dr Smt Kanta Srivastava and both of them instigated her husband to commit suicide. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that after registration of the FIR, applicant approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc Writ Petition for quashing of the said FIR and this Court vide order dated 15.2.2002 has granted interim stay of arrest of the applicant. Later on, the Investigating Officer after investigation submitted charge sheet in the matter on 3.3.2002 whereupon cognizable was taken by the learned court below vide order dated 27.4.2002. Thereafter, applicant again approached this Court by filing application under section 482 challenging the charge sheet and the cognizance order and this court vide order dated 11.10.2002 stayed the further proceedings of the case. It is further submitted that the aforesaid application under section 482 Cr.P.C. came to be dismissed in default on 19.10.2010. Thereafter, applicant again approached this Court by filing application under section 482 challenging the charge sheet and the cognizance order and this court vide order dated 11.10.2002 stayed the further proceedings of the case. It is further submitted that the aforesaid application under section 482 Cr.P.C. came to be dismissed in default on 19.10.2010. It is further submitted that and thereafter court below straightaway issued N.B.W. against the applicant on 18.09.2019 in view of judgement of Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Ltd. and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC 299 and also issued process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. against the applicant vide order dated 30.05.2019. 5. It is further submitted that applicant approached the Court below by filing Anticipatory Bail, in which the court below, after considering the fact that during curse of investigation applicant was not arrested and has fully co-operated in the investigation and the charge sheet has been filed without his arrest, granted interim bail vide its order dated 14.06.2023. The said anticipatory bail application was later on dismissed by the court below vide order dated 13.07.2023, hence the present application before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the allegation regarding harassment to the first informant and her husband is totally false as earlier neither they have made any complaint against the applicant nor any dispute has been taken place between the applicant and the first informant but only to harass the applicant present FIR has been lodged against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has apprehension of arrest in the above mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. The applicant is having definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time. It is further submitted that applicant is a practicing Advocate of District Firozabad and is presently 76 years old and infirm and has no criminal history. 7. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said facts. The applicant is having definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time. It is further submitted that applicant is a practicing Advocate of District Firozabad and is presently 76 years old and infirm and has no criminal history. 7. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said facts. However, it is further submitted that after the expiry of the interim order passed by this Court, the applicant did not appear before the Court below and therefore Nonbailable warrants and process under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have already been issued against the applicant. It is further submitted that the offense committed by the accused is of serious nature and if the accused is released on bail, there is a possibility of absconding and tampering with the evidence. 8. Considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, without prejudice to the merits of the case, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCCOnlineSC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court. 9. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant Kamal Singh Yadav, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on 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 trial court concerned with the following conditions:- (1) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (2) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court. (3) The applicant shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court. (4) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. (3) The applicant shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court. (4) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicants. (5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCCOnlineSC 98. (6) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 10. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants. 11. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of.