Uttarakhand High Court
BA2/215/2021 on 30 November, 2021
Author: R.C. Khulbe
Bench: R.C. Khulbe
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
CRLR No.215 of 2021
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
Mr. Ravi Bisht, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists.
Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned B.H. for the State. Mr. Siddartha Singh, learned counsel for the private respondent.
List the matter on 20.07.2021.
Meanwhile, State will file counter affidavit. Accused-Tanuj Aswal has sought his release on bail in connection with Case Crime/FIR No.210/2020 u/s 302 IPC registered at P.S. Doiwala, District Dehradun.
It is argued that the accused has been falsely implicated; he is languishing in jail since 11.09.2020; there is no criminal history nor any evidence against him; he is ready to furnish the sureties and may be granted bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed for bail.
The accused is languishing in jail since 11.09.2020; he is not named in the FIR; although during investigation, a stick was recovered on the pointing out of accused but the same was not sent for the FSL testing; as per the post-mortem report, cause of death is strangulation; there is no injury found on the body of deceased either external or internal; there is even no prima facie evidence against the accused except the recovery of stick which was recovered on his pointing out, however the cause of death is strangulation; thus, without making any comment on the merits, it is a fit case for bail at this stage.
The bail application is thus, allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
Accused-Rajendra Prasad Gupta has sought his release on bail in connection with Case Crime/FIR No.140 of 2021, u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, registered at P.S. Jwalapur, Distt. Haridwar.
It is argued that the accused has been falsely implicated; he was Range Officer; Forest Conservator has already submitted a report in favour of the accused; co-accused - Vishambar Dutt Pant has already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court; he is ready to furnish the sureties; and he may be granted bail on parity.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed for bail but fairly admitted that the above co- accused has been enlarged on bail.
In the present matter, the accused is languishing in jail since 15.11.2020; there is no chance of absconding of the accused; the above co- accused has already been enlarged on bail; the role is identical, accordingly, without going into merits of the case, it is a fit case for bail at this stage on parity.
Accordingly, bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on the ground of parity on his executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. At the request of learned counsel for the applicant, the instant bail application is being treated as short-term bail application.
Accused-Poonam Bhagat has sought her release on bail in connection with Case Crime/FIR No.141 of 2021, u/s 304B IPC, registered at P.S. Kotwali Jwalapur, Distt. Haridwar.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the accused is facing acute arthritis and spondylitis; as per jail report, she has been referred to District Hospital; and, the applicant may be granted short-term bail for a period of 30 days.
The State has no objection to the same. Accordingly, a short-term bail for a period of 30 days is granted to the applicant from the date of her release for treatment on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
It is made clear that after completion of 30 days period the applicant will surrender before the concerned Jail Authority.
Accordingly, the present bail application is disposed of.
At the request of learned counsel, the instant second bail application is treated as the short term bail application.
Accused-Mohd. Adnan has sought his release on bail in connection with Case Crime/FIR No.0148 of 2019, u/s 395/342 /398/412/506/420/468/471/120-B/201 IPC, registered at P.S. Rajpur, Distt. Dehradun.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the accused is suffering from Hernia disease; there is an urgent need of surgery; and, the applicant may be granted short-term bail for a period of two months.
The State has no objection to the same.
As per the jail report dated 07.07.2021, the accused has been advised to undergo 'Mesh Hernioplasty and Cholecystectomy' at Govt. Doon Medical College and Hospital at Dehradun.
Accordingly, a short-term bail for a period of 60 days is granted to the applicant from the date of his release for his treatment on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
It is made clear that after completion of 60 days period, the applicant will surrender before the concerned Jail Authority.
The instant bail application is thus, disposed of.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
Applicant-Mohd. Sakir Saifi has filed this application seeking to cancel the bail granted to respondent no.2 by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.11.2019 in connection with Case Crime No.368 of 2019 u/s 363/366-A/120-B IPC and Sections 16/17 of the POCSO Act at P.S. Patel Nagar, District Dehradun. .
Heard.
After filing of instant application, notices was issued to the respondent, which was served, but since there was no appearance on his behalf, accordingly, vide order dated 01.04.2021, non- bailable warrants were issued against him, in compliance of which, he was arrested, and presently, he is languishing in jail.
It is alleged in the bail cancellation application that on 11.03.2020, when the applicant was going from Dehradun to Bhudva (District- Udham Singh Nagar) in order to attend the marriage of his sister, which was fixed on 12.03.2020, the respondent Imran along with others threatened the applicant-informant to withdraw the case.
It is submitted that the applicant informed the police also on the very same day, but they did not pay any heed.
On being enquired about the call details record (CDR), learned counsel, appearing for the State, fairly submits that since the matter relates to March, 2020, and the call details cannot be preserved after one year, therefore, he is unable to produce those call details before this Court.
It is, therefore, clear that no call detail is available on record about the information given by the applicant to the police on 11.03.2020. The applicant filed the instant bail cancellation application on 15.06.2020, however there is no paper available on record to show that during this period, he tried to lodge any FIR before the concerned Police Station or to file any complaint before the concerned Magistrate. Furthermore, as per the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she did not make any allegation against the present accused.
In these circumstances, it is apparent that there is no evidence on record to prove that the private respondent/accused had extended threatening(s) to the applicant-informant on 11.03.2020.
Accordingly, this bail cancellation application, having no force of law, is hereby dismissed.
Since the respondent-accused is lying in jail in compliance of the non-bailable warrants directed to be issued by this Court, let the said respondent be released on bail on furnishing a fresh personal bond but on the same sureties as furnished earlier by him before the concerned Court.
Let a certified copy of this order be supplied, today itself, to the learned counsel for the parties, on payment of usual charges.
After some length of argument, the learned counsel for the applicant confined his prayer that a liberty may be given to the applicant to move an application seeking bail apprehending his arrest under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. before the concerned Sessions Judge.
In view of the submission made, I do not find it appropriate to proceed further with the matter, because the writ applicant has an alternate efficacious remedy.
However, in order to protect the applicant's interest, the respondents are directed not to arrest the applicant within a period of 30 days from today, so as to enable him to approach the appropriate court for seeking appropriate remedy, provided the applicant will cooperate in the investigation.
With these observations, the anticipatory application is disposed of finally.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
After some length of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant confined his prayer that a direction may be issued to the lower court to decide the bail application of the applicant on the very same day.
Accordingly, the instant application is disposed of with the direction that, if the applicant puts his appearance on or before 06.08.2021 before the lower court and move an application seeking bail, the learned Magistrate will decide the said bail application on the very same day. In case of rejection, the Magistrate will forward the rejection order, along with all the documents, to the concerned Sessions Judge on the very same day, who, then, will decide the bail application expeditiously, as per law.
In the meantime, the respondents are directed not to adopt any coercive measures against the applicant, subject to his cooperation in the investigation.
Heard this matter through video conferencing. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 03.04.2021 and 05.04.2021, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khatima in S.T. No.152 of 2015, "State Vs. Rohit Kumar" whereby the learned trial Court convicted the appellant U/s 25 Arms Act and sentenced him one year's R.I. with a fine of Rs.2,000/-
Admit.
Heard on the bail application (IA/1/2021) It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that since the appellant has been enlarged on bail U/s 398, 401 IPC in S.T. No.150 of 2015, he is ready to furnish the sureties and he may be granted bail.
Per contra, the State counsel fairly admitted the above facts Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
Bail application is allowed, accordingly. List the matter connecting with CRLA No.152 of 2021.
Heard.
This petition is filed seeking to quash the Case Crime /FIR no.180 of 2021 u/s 3, 5 & 11 of the Uttarakhand Cow Progeny (Protection) Act, lodged against the petitioner, at P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar.
It is argued that in the present FIR, the accused was not arrested at the spot; there is no recovery from him; the interim protection has been granted in favour of the other two accused by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, accordingly, on the ground of parity, he is also entitled for the same relief.
List this matter connecting with WPCRL No.509 of 2021 and WPCRL No.1229 of 2021.
As an interim measure, it is directed that till the next date of listing, the respondents shall not adopt any coercive measure(s) against the petitioner in connection with FIR No.180 of 2021, U/s 3,5,11 of the Uttarakhand Protecton of Cow Progency Act, subject to his cooperation with the investigating agency.
Stay application (IA/1/2021) stands disposed of.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of present writ petition, petitioners seek to quash impugned FIR/Case Crime No.276 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 354, 504, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Pathri, District Haridwar.
The writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
In view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, the petitioner should be arrested only when the Investigating Officer has reason to believe on the basis of information and material collected, that he has committed an offence. Before making arrest, the Investigating Officer is required to satisfy himself that the arrest is necessary for one or more purposes envisaged by Sub-Clauses (a) to (e) of Clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.P.C. It will not be based upon the ipsi dixit of the Police Officer. In other words, the petitioner shall be arrested only when the conditions stipulated in Sub-Clauses (a) to (e) of Clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.P.C. are satisfied. Petitioners are directed to contact the Investigating Officer.
Criminal writ petition is summarily disposed of with the direction as above.
All pending applications also stand disposed of.
Heard.
This criminal misc. application has been filed U/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 985 of 2021, 'State vs. Monika Saini; pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that a false report is submitted by respondent no.3-Suman Saini against the applicant while in the present matter earlier a complaint was moved before the Lokpal (MGNREGA) Haridwar in which an inquiry was conducted, ultimately it was found that no case is made out against the applicant; in spite of that, the concerned P.S. lodged the FIR.
During the course of investigation, the statements of concerned Officer of SBI and Lokpal were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; both the above statements are on record. As per the statement of Officer of SBI, the respondent submitted an application for opening an account in the SBI, which was duly identified by the concerned Gram Pradan. As per the statement of Lokpal, he conducted a thorough inquiry and found that it was a false complaint submitted by respondent.
From the perusal of the above statements, there is no evidence against the applicant and from the perusal of the charge sheet dated 25.05.2021, it is clear that, the concerned court took the cognizance simply on the basis of charge sheet submitted by the I.O.; the cognizance was taken in a cursory manner over the charge sheet.
Issue notice to respondent no.3. Steps to be taken within seven days. List this matter on 11.11.2021.
In the meantime, the applicant will have a right to move an adjournment application before the concerned Court below.
Heard.
By means of present writ petition, petitioners seek to quash the impugned FIR/Case Crime No.565 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 504 IPC, registered at Police Station Raipur, District- Dehradun.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no.3 is the husband while petitioner no.1 and 2 are the in-laws of respondent no.4; a false report has been submitted by respondent no.4 against the writ-petitioners; it is purely a matrimonial dispute; the petitioners are ready to settle the dispute with respondent no.4; it is also submitted that since the occurrence took place at Ghaziabad, hence, the police of Raipur has no jurisdiction to investigate the matter; and, no case is made out U/s 498A and 504 IPC.
Issue notice to respondent no.4. Steps to be taken within seven days. Learned counsel for the State prays for and is allowed six weeks' time to seek instructions.
List this matter on 06.01.2021 In the meantime, the Investigating Officer will follow the procedure under Section 41 Cr.P.C. as per law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.
Heard.
This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 02.05.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar in complaint case no.937 of 2014, "Mohammad Shahid Khan Vs. Zafar Khan" as well as judgment and order dated 13.10.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.142 of 2019, "Zafar Khan Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another".
Admit.
Summon the LCR.
List thereafter.
Heard on the bail application (IA/1/2021) It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist was on bail during the trial and the appeal; he did not misuse the conditions of bail as imposed on him by the trial Court; he is ready to furnish the sureties and he may be granted bail.
Per contra, the State counsel fairly admitted the above facts.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the revisionist is enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to deposition of 50% of the fine mount (after adjusting the amount already paid) i.e. Rs.1,85,000/- before the Court concerned.
Bail application is allowed, accordingly.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.) 30.11.2021 Sukhbant