Allahabad High Court
Farhan vs State Of U.P. on 16 September, 2020
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved On:- 09.09.2020
Delivered On:- 16.09.2020
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3659 of 2020
Applicant :- Farhan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Deena Nath,Ashwini Kumar Tripathi,Aushim Luthra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Nand Pandey,Rakesh Dubey
Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Ashwini Kumar Tripathi, Sri D.N. Joshi and Sri Prabha Shankar Mishra, learned counsels for the applicant; Sri Rakesh Dubey, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Farhan, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 1212 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 447, 386 I.P.C., Police Station- Dhoomanganj, District- Prayagraj, during pendency of trial.
3. The allegations in the F.I.R. against the applicant are that the informant purchased land of Gata No. 92 situated in village- Gayasuddinpur Uparhar, Police Station- Dhoomanganj, Tehsil- Sadar, District- Prayagraj and on 8.11.2019 at 11 a.m., he was digging his plot for raising boundaries when the applicant along with six unknown persons came with illegal arms and demanded illegal money of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Gunda Tax) from the informant and threatened him of life. The F.I.R. was lodged on 05.12.2019.
4. Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is a case of false implication. The applicant was lifted from his house on 04.12.2019 and beaten up in Police Station- Cantt and on 05.12.2019, he was falsely implicated in this case. The applicant has criminal history of 29 cases and in all the cases, the applicant has either been released on bail or the cases are pending. He had not been convicted in any case till date. Explanation regarding these cases have been given in paragraph 10 of the affidavit in support of the bail application. The applicant has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will not tamper with the witnesses or the evidence, if released on bail. He has been falsely implicated in this case and is in jail since 5.12.2019. The offences alleged are minor offences and the offence u/s 386 I.P.C. is not made out against him.
5. Sri Rakesh Dubey, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application of the applicant and has filed counter affidavit explaining the detailed conduct and criminal history of the applicant. He has submitted that the applicant is a habitual offender and has committed major offences like murder, extortion, abduction, loot, dacoity, rape etc., and the Police Station- Dhoomanganj, District- Prayagraj has opened his history-sheet no. 116A. There are three cases of murder against him. In all the cases when he was enlarged on bail by the Court, he was required to respect the law and not get himself involved in any other case. But he has violated the terms and conditions of the bail orders. There are two cases u/s 307 and other sections of I.P.C. registered against him wherein also, he has violated the terms and conditions of the order. There are two cases registered against the applicant regarding threat and abduction to commit murder of witness wherein also he was released on bail on the condition that he will not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of crime after release on bail but he has violated the conditions. The applicant has committed several offences of extortion earlier also one being Case Crime No. 482 of 2011 u/s 504, 506, 386, 387 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (v) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Dhoomanganj, District- Prayagraj and the same is the story in this case. The applicant snatched AK-47 rifle of the gunner of the S.P. Sadar and badly assaulted him. He was implicated in Case Crime No. 206 of 2012. However, the police has submitted final report in the same. The applicant was involved in a case of gang rape also being Case Crime No. 341 of 2017 and after the mother of the victim filed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 24639 of 2017 and the directions of this Court, the victim was recovered. The applicant has been implicated under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 thrice. He was involved in triple murder of Raju Pal and his associates along with his gang leader, Atiq Ahmed and the F.I.R. in this regard was lodged as Case Crime No. 34 of 2005 at Police Station- Dhoomanganj, District- Allahabad. In the aforesaid murder case, a bail cancellation application was moved against the applicant but it was rejected by this Court. The applicant is companion of Atiq Ahmed and has scant respect for law and has violated the conditions of bail with impunity. He has finally submitted that keeping in view the criminal antecedents of the accused-applicant and the fact that he had violated the conditions of the bail orders granted by this Court, there is no ground made out for enlarging the applicant on bail.
6. Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the bail application of the applicant on the ground that the applicant is a person whose release on bail would again affect the public order and he will again pose potential threat to the society. The applicant has not brought on record the statement of the witnesses recorded by the police nor the site plan of the scene of occurrence.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has rejoined and has submitted that the applicant was falsely implicated in the case u/s 376 I.P.C. being Case Crime No. 341 of 2017. When the victim's statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, she stated that she filed affidavit against the applicant on the undue pressure of the police. The applicant was not involved in the aforesaid case. He has further submitted that the bail orders of different cases and the conditions allegedly violated by the applicant in those cases are not required to be seen in the present case and are not relevant for consideration of the bail application of the applicant in the present case. No bail cancellation application has been filed in the cases where the applicant is alleged to have violated the conditions of the bail orders.
8. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that the applicant is a history-sheeter and has indulged in number of grave crimes earlier. There maybe fair possibility of his implication in the present case, keeping in view his criminal antecedents. The applicant has betrayed the trust imposed in him repeatedly by this Court with impunity and repeatedly in granting him discretionary relief of bail. Further indulgence to him is not warranted at this stage. The argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that the violation of the conditions of bail orders in earlier cases is not relevant in this case is not correct. The general principle of law is that judgments, whether previous or subsequent are not relevant, in any case or proceedings. However, under Section 42 of the Evidence Act, there is an exception for such judgments or orders if they relate to matters of public nature, they become relevant, but not conclusive proof of the matter. At the stage of bail, the previous orders of bail are relevant since public order is involved. On the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not finds it a fit case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.
9. Consequently, this bail application is rejected. The trial court is expected to conclude the trial against the applicant within a period of one year from the date the normal functioning of the trial court is resumed keeping in view the disturbance caused by the spread of novel Corona Virus in proper functioning of the Court.
Order date : 16.09.2020 KS