Allahabad High Court
Uma Shankar @ Aakash vs State Of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. ... on 12 July, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:45293 Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1553 of 2023 Applicant :- Uma Shankar @ Aakash Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kunwar Ravi Prakash,Digvijay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Kunwar Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the records.
2. The instant application has been filed by the applicants seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 1100 of 2015, under Sections 147, 323, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.
3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 29.12.2015 against five persons, including the applicant, alleging preparation of a forged will to grab the informant's property. It has been stated in the affidavit that initially the police had submitted a final report but upon a protest application, the final report has been rejected and the Court had taken cognizance of the case. The petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 35730 (M/B) of 2019 challenging the FIR and by means of an order dated 19.12.2019 arrest of the applicant was stayed till submission of the charge sheet but the petitioner has not disclosed the date of submission of charge sheet in the case. The application for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Lucknow by means of an order dated 14.03.2023 and the present application has been filed on 05.07.2023. Meanwhile, proceedings under Section 82 Cr.p.C. have been initiated against the applicant.
4. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the application and has submitted that in view of the law laid down in Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCCOnLine 955, the applicant is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail as he has been declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
5. Replying to the aforesaid preliminary objection, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that prior to issuance of proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., the applicant had already approached the trial court for grant of anticipatory bail. Relying upon the decision dated 14.07.2022 rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 4645 of 2022, Manish Yadav v. State of UP, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as the proclamation has been issued on 09.06.2023 after rejection of the anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court, the bar laid down in Prem Shankar Prasad (supra) will not be attracted to the present case.
6. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view that the anticipatory bail application of the applicant was rejected by the Sessions Judge on 14.03.2023 and the applicant did not either surrender before the Court or move an application for grant of anticipatory bail before this Court and a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued on 09.06.2023, i.e. after about three months since rejection of his application for anticipatory bail and that the present application has been filed after about one month since issuance of proclamation, the aforesaid conduct of the applicant disentitle him for grant of discretion of this Court by granting pre-arrest bail to thm.
7. The anticipatory bail application is rejected accordingly. However, it is needless to observe that in case the applicants file an application for grant of bail, the same shall be considered and decided on its merits, without being influenced by any observations made in this order.
Order Date :- 12.7.2023 Pradeep/-