Allahabad High Court
Gulab Chandra vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 January, 2020
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54362 of 2019 Applicant :- Gulab Chandra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Chauhan,Ikshwaku Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,R.K.Singh,S.N.Singh Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Second supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant and counter affidavit filed by the informant. Taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Pradeep Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri S.N. Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ankit Shrivastav, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Gulab Chandra with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. -385 of 2018, under Sections -363, 366, 368, 342 I.P.C. & 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station -Madhiyahun, District - Jaunpur, during pendency of trial.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:
(i) the applicant is accused of abduction to force marriage and other offences, punishable with imprisonment of ten years;
(ii) against FIR lodged on 12.11.2018, the applicant is in confinement since 13.10.2019. As to the delay, it has been explained on account of the fact that earlier this Court had granted stay against the arrest of the applicant and also anticipatory bail has been granted to him;
(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation;
(iv) as to criminal history, though such history was not disclosed in the original affidavit filed with the bail application, however by means of second supplementary affidavit filed, the same has been explained;
(v) While proceedings under the Gunda Act has been dropped against the applicant in the offence alleged under Section 371 IPC, a final report appears to have been submitted in the year 2015. Also, discharge application is stated to be pending in the case involving allegation of offence under Section 379 IPC whereas the other case being Case Crime No.570 of 2019 was lodged on 15.10.2019, after the applicant was arrested on 13.10.2019 in the present case. As to the other two cases, it has been pointed out that stay has been granted by the Division Bench of this Court in Case Crime No.62 of 2019 by means of order dated 18.04.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.10084 of 2019 and in the sixth case which is a criminal complaint, no statement has been recorded under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., and therefore, the applicant has yet not been summoned;
(vi) chargesheet has been submitted yet there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial;
(vii) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted that there is a dispute between one Ramesh Pratap, son of Jayashri and his second wife Meera Devi. The applicant claims to be a lawyer who represents Ramesh Pratap, and it has been further disclosed that, at the instance of the said Ramesh Pratap, he had earlier pursued an application on 26.10.2018 alleging that one Kapildev had abducted his wife Meera Devi and his daughter Km. Ujala. The SSP Jaunpur appears to have made some note on that application regarding registration of a case. However since no case was registered, the applicant further claims to have filed an application dated 12.11.2018 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on behalf of the said Ramesh Pratap in the Court of A.C.J.M.-I, Jaunpur. On that date itself, the present FIR came to be lodged against the applicant making allegation of having kidnapped Km. Ujala on 12.11.2018 itself. Thus, it has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated by Meera Devi owing to her bad relations with the client of the present applicant Ramesh Pratap. The said action is claimed to have been performed by said Meera Devi under the influence of Kapildev who is man of ill repute. The habeas corpus petition no.4000 of 2018 has also been filed by the applicant to trace out the corpus of Km. Ujala.
5. The above bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the informant, who would submit that present is a case of abduction of a minor girl, who has yet not been recovered. The applicant though a lawyer has a long criminal history (which has been adverted to above); specific allegation has been made against the applicant both in the FIR as also in the statement of the co-accused; the police has submitted a final report in the case that came to be registered pursuant to the application dated 12.11.2018 filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and; one of the co-accused is still absconding. Thus, it has been submitted if the applicant is enlarged on bail at this stage, it would prejudice the fair course of trial.
6. Learned AGA has also advanced submissions to similar effect.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place, it has to be noted that investigation has been completed and chargesheet submitted. In that context, examined in entirety, it cannot be overlooked that prior to the FIR being lodged, a complaint had been made on 26.10.2018 reporting abduction of both Meera Devi and the missing Km. Ujala.
8. Then considering the fact that the applicant is a lawyer of the person who had made such complaint and the other facts noted above and without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressuring the witness, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
9. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, the bail being granted shall be cancelled.
10. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
11. It is made clear that, in the event of violation of any terms and conditions of the bail order or in the event of any attempt being made by the applicant to intimidate the witness or to tamper the evidence, the informant shall be at liberty to file a bail cancellation application supported by the relevant material. That application if filed, may be taken up on priority.
Order Date :- 7.1.2020 S.Chaurasia