Allahabad High Court
Manisha Yadav And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 February, 2023
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 64 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42351 of 2022 Applicant :- Manisha Yadav And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to direct the Court below i.e. Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act)/Second Additional Session Judge, Court No. 2, Bhadohi-Gyanpur, not to take coercive action against the applicants in case they file bail application in S.T. No. 224 of 2022; State v. Dukhiram Yadav and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 224 of 2022, under Sections 147, 323, 336, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3(1) r, s S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Gyanpur, District Bhadohi, till the disposal of bail application.
3. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is, earlier the applicants along with co-accused had approached this Court in Application u/S 482 No. 26345 of 2022 (Dukhiram Yadav and 6 others v. State of U.P. and another). That application was disposed of on 9.9.2022 by the following order :
"This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of S.T. No.224 of 2022 (State Vs. Dukhiram Yadav and others) arising out of Case Crime No.38 of 2022, under Section 147, 323, 336, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1) r,s SC/ST Act, Police Station- Gyanpur, District- Bhadohi pending before the Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Second Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Bhadohi-Gyanpur.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not want to press the prayer. Submission of the learned counsel is that requirement of applicants shall be substantially met with, if they are granted a direction to appear before the Court below so that they may obtain their bail and submit to the jurisdiction of the court.
In the light of submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, this application so far as it seeks quashing of the entire proceeding, the same stands dismissed.
However, it is observed that if the bail has not been obtained as yet, the accused may appear before the court below and apply for bail. The Court below shall make an endeavour to decide the bail application in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
It is further clarified that this order has been passed only with regard to the accused on behalf of whom application has been moved in this Court.
With the aforesaid observations this application is finally disposed of."
2. Initially, the male members of the family of the present applicants who were the co-accused had approached the Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Bhadohi, seeking bail. On that date, charge sheet in the case had already been submitted before the learned court below. In that fact situation, below quoted order was passed by the learned court below on 28.9.2022 granting interim bail to the co-accused :
"जमानत प्रार्थनापत्र सुनवाई हेतु प्रस्तुत हुआ। प्रार्थी / अभियुक्त अखिलेश यादव की ओर से प्रार्थनापत्र 6ख प्रस्तुत करके कथन किया गया कि यदि जमानत प्रार्थनापत्र पर आज सुनवाई सम्भव न हो तो उन्हें अंतरिम जमानत मुचलिके पर रिहा किया जाये।
अभियुक्त अखिलेश यादव को धारा-147,323,504,366,506, भा०दं०सं० व धारा-3(1)द, 3(1)ध एस सी एस टी ऐक्ट थाना-ज्ञानपुर, जिला-भदोही के मामले आत्मसमर्पण करने पर न्यायिक अभिरक्षा में लिया गया सुना एवं अवलोकन किया।
चूंकि यह मुकदमा एस०सी०एस०टी०ऐक्ट से संबंधित है जिसमें पीड़ित/मुकदमा वादी या उनके आश्रित को अधिनियम की धार-15ए की उपधारा 3 के तहत सुना जाना जरूरी है। अतः विशेष लोक अभियोजक को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह पीड़ित/वादी मुकदमा या उसके आश्रित को समय सीमा के अन्दर समुचित रूप से सूचित करें, ताकि नियमित जमानत प्रार्थनापत्र की सुनवाई के समय वह अपना पक्ष रख सके।
नियमित जमानत प्रार्थनापत्र वास्ते सुनवाई दिनांक-04.10.2022 को पेश हो। अभियुक्त अखिलेश यादव को मु० 20,000/- रूपये का व्यक्तिगत बंधपत्र एवं समान धनराशि की दो प्रतिभू दाखिल करने पर नियत तिथि तक 04.10.2022 तक अंतरिम जमानत पर रिहा किया जाता है। वादी यदि चाहे तो अग्रिम तिथि तक काउन्टर दाखिल करे। नियत तिथि पर अभियुक्त आत्मसमर्पण करेगा, तब उसके नियमित जमानत पर आवेदन पर सुनवाई की जायेगी।"
3. Similar order was passed on 12.10.2022 with respect to the other co-accused.
4. Though charge sheet had already been submitted and there was no requirement to detain the co-accused in judicial custody specially after being granted interim bail, the interim bail thus granted was extended a few days. Later, on 2.11.2022 without any change of circumstances, the learned court below proceeded to cancel the interim bail granted. Consequently the co-accused persons were taken in custody. For ready reference, order dated 2.11.2022 is quoted below:
"नियमित जमानत प्रार्थनापत्र सुनवाई हेतु पेश हुआ। प्रार्थीगण/ अभियुक्तगण मिथिलेश पुत्र रामराज, दुखीराम यादव, राम कैलाश यादव व त्रिभुवन यादव पुत्र स्व० ........ यादव निवासीगण-पीपरगांव, थाना-ज्ञानपुर, जनपद भदोही द्वारा मुकदमा अपराध संख्या- 38/2022 धारा- 147,323,336,504,506 भा०दं०सं० व धारा 3(1) द. ध एस.सी./ एसटी एक्ट, थाना-ज्ञानपुर, जिला-भदोही के अंतरिम जमानत प्रार्थनापत्र पर सुना गया।
प्रार्थीगण आज दिनांक 02.11.2022 तक अंतरिम जमानत पर है। प्रार्थीगण/ अभियुक्तगण की तरफ से अन्तरिम जमानत बढ़ाये जाने हेतु प्रार्थना पत्र 14ख प्रस्तुत किया गया।
चूंकि यह मुकदमा अनुसूचित जाति एवं अनुसूचित जनजाति अत्याचार निवारण अधिनियम से सम्बन्धित है, जिसमें पीड़ित/ मुकदमा वादी या उसके आश्रित को अधिनियम की धारा 15ए की उपधारा-3 के तहत सुना जाना जरूरी है।
वादी मुकदमा राजू सरोज मय विद्वान अधिवक्ता उपस्थित आए और प्रतिशपथ पत्र दाखिल कर मूल जमानत पर सुनवाई हेतु समय प्रदान किये जाने की याचना की गयी और मौखिक रूप से अग्रिम जमानत बढ़ाये जाने का विरोध किया गया और कहा गया कि अभियुक्तगण के द्वारा 8 चोटहिलों को विभिन्न प्रकार की चोटें पहुंचायी गयी है। अतः अंतरिम जमानत न बढ़ायी जाए।
सत्र परीक्षण पत्रावली में संलग्न प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट के अवलोकन से विदित है कि घटना दिनांक 20.03.2022 को समय लगभग 1.00 बजे दोपहर ग्राम समाज की जमीन पर कब्जा व पूजा पाठ के विवाद को लेकर अभियुक्तगण द्वारा गन्दी गंदी गाली देते हुए जाति सूचक शब्दों का प्रयोग किया गया और लाठी डंडा, ईट पत्थर से मारा और जान से मारने की धमकी दी।
पत्रावली मे संलग्न आघात आख्या चोटिहल कमला देवी के अवलोकन मे विदित है कि उक्त घटना में उसके शरीर पर एक किता चोटे आयी थी।
चोट सं० 1 Swelling 4.5X5Cm presnet on left ankle joint lateral aspect.
आघात आख्या चोटिहल रवि कुमार सरोज के अवलोकन से विदित है कि उक्त घटना में उसके शरीर पर दो किता चोटें आयी थी।
चोट सं०1. Contused wound 4X4 Cm present on left lower lid red in color.
चोट सं० 2. Blood clot present on left nostril.
आघात आख्या चोटिहल पार्वती देवी के अवलोकन से विदित है कि उक्त घटना में उसके शरीर पर तीन किता चोटें आयी थी।
चोट सं०1. L/W 0.5X 0.5Cm X full thickness bleeding stop.
चोट सं०2. L/W 0.5X 0.5Cm X full thickness of lower lip left side bleeding stop.
चोट सं०3. Contused wound 3.5X3Cm present on right side temporal region.
आघात आख्या चोटिहल पर्निता के अवलोकन से विदित है कि उक्त घटना मे उसके शरीर पर तीन किता चोटें आयी थी।
चोट सं०1. L/W 0.5X 0.5Cm X Muscle deep present on left side of forehead bleeding stop.
चोट सं० 2. Contused wound 4.5X5Cm present on left side lover end of femar red in color.
आघात आख्या चोटिहल कुसुमा देवी के अवलोकन से विदित है कि उक्त घटना में उसके शरीर पर दो किता चोटें आयी थी।
चोट सं०1. L/W 3.5X 0.5Cm X Muscle deep present on parietal bone of right side of skull, 5Cm Above right ear.
चोट सं०2. Complaint of pain.
आघात आख्या चोटिहल ममता कुमारी के अवलोकन से विदित है कि उक्त घटना में उसके शरीर पर दो किता चोटें आयी थी।
चोट सं०1. L/W 0.5X 0.5Cm X Muscle deep present on right Wrist? Joint bleeding stop.
चोट सं०2. Abrasion 3.5X 1Cm X Muscle deep present on right side of mid leg anterior aspect.
आघात आख्या चोटिहल फोटो देवी के अवलोकन से विदित है कि उक्त घटना में उसके शरीर पर एक किता चोटें आयी थी।
चोट सं०1. Contused wound 1X2Cm present on left side face 4Cm anterior to left ear red in color.
आघात आख्या चोटिहल श्याम कुमारी के अवलोकन से विदित है कि उक्त घटना उसके शरीर पर एक किता चोटें आयी थी।
चोट सं०1. Contused wound 3X2cm present on left knee joint red in color.
उपरोक्त वर्णित 8 चोटहिलों की सभी चोटे सख्त एवं कुन्दाल्य वस्तु से आना दर्शित है और कुछ चोटो के संबंध में एक्स-रे की सलाह दी गयी।
अतः उपरोक्त वर्णित तथ्य एवं परिस्थितियों को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए प्रार्थीगण / अभियुक्तगण का अंतरिम जमानत खारिज किये जाने योग्य है।
आदेश प्रार्थीगण/ अभियुक्तगण मिथिलेश पुत्र रामराज, दुखीराम यादव, राम कैलाश यादव व त्रिभुवन यादव पुत्रगण स्व० जलई यादव निवासीगण-पीपरगांव, थाना-ज्ञानपुर, जनपद भदोही द्वारा मुकदमा अपराध संख्या-38/2022 धारा-147,323,336,504,506 भा०द०सं० व धार 3(1)द, ध एस.सी./ एस.टी एक्ट, थाना-ज्ञानपुर, जिला भदोही का अंतरिम जमानत खारिज किया जाता है। पत्रावली वास्ते सुनवाई मूल जमानत प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांक 15.11.2022 को पेश हो। ए.डी.जे.सी. अभियुक्तगण के संबंध में अपराधिक इतिहास यदि कोई हो तो तथा कमेंट अग्रिम तिथि को प्रस्तुत करे।"
5. Upon being thus detained, the co-accused thus applied for regular bail which was granted on 15.11.2022.
6. In the context of such proceedings, it has been submitted, learned court below has adopted a method which may not be approved. Once the accused persons were cooperating in the proceedings and since the offence alleged were punishable for imprisonment less than 7 years and also since the accused persons did not have any criminal history, they had claimed grant of bail together with other prayer to be enlarged on interim bail. Since the charge sheet had already been submitted keeping in mind the principle of law contained in the decision of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another; (2021) 10 SCC 773, the learned court below had rightly proceeded to enlarge the co-accused on interim bail.
7. It is not the case of the prosecution that the co-accused who were thus enlarged on interim bail had violated or misused the interim bail thus granted. Also the order dated 2.11.2022 does not contain any observation or discussion as may be read by way of reasoning to reject the interim bail granted earlier.
8. Then, having cancelled the interim bail, in the same fact situation, after almost two weeks of detention thus forced on the co-accused, they were enlarged on regular bail.
9. Consequently, the submission is, the learned court below has conducted the proceedings in a manner that has resulted in unnecessary curtailment of liberty of the co-accused contrary to the principle of law. Unless the custody of the co-accused was warranted either occasioned by their criminal history or their conduct during investigation or before the learned court below or for reasoning of nature of offence alleged and punishment awardable, no undue curtailment of liberty of the co-accused was required to be made. Infact such curtailment was clearly not permissible in law.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it does merit acceptance that the approach of the learned court below may not be approved or condoned by this Court. Though, it is true that a person summoned was an accused person, there was no warrant to necessarily curtail his liberty except in accordance with law. Once the accused thus summoned had shown to have no criminal history and was clearly seen to have cooperated in the proceedings, then, the learned court below ought to have further examined if the offence alleged was such or there existed any circumstance disclosed as would require curtailment of liberty of the accused persons, during the proceedings before it.
11. In the present case, it is more glaring that such prima facie appreciation appears to have been made in favour of the co-accused whereupon they were granted interim bail. Once the learned court below had exercised its discretion on 28.9.2022 and 12.10.2022, primarily the satisfaction required to be drawn on the next date was as to the further compliance made by the concerned. Inasmuch as the co-accused had abided by the terms interim bail; insofar as there was no allegation of violation of the interim bail order, and the charge sheet stood submitted, primarily, the co-accused may have been enlarged on regular bail without being detained for almost two weeks, unless special reasons were found existing to not follow the course. Hence, the course adopted by the learned court below does not find acceptance of this Court. It has led to needless litigation at the cost of curtailment of liberty of the co-accused, for no reason found existing.
12. In view of the facts noted above, the applicants rightly apprehend, they may be similarly treated by the learned court below.
13. The Courts are meant to deliver justice in a transparent manner. The Courts do not seek to offer punishment on prima facie consideration but only upon due consideration of entire material and evidence. Any order that may lead to unnecessary curtailment of liberty of a citizen may amount to award a punishment, however short. Personal liberty being the mother of all fundamental rights, the same is not be lightly tinkered with unless facts of a case so warrant and unless specific reasons exist as may also be recorded wherever required, curtailment of liberty would ever remain a serious concern for this Court.
14. Accordingly, in view of the facts noted above, the application is disposed of with the direction, in case the applicants appear before the learned court below within 30 days and apply for bail, that application may be considered and decided on its own merits strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible without being prejudiced by any observation made in this order.
Order Date :- 8.2.2023 SA