Allahabad High Court
Shiv Ram Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 July, 2023
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:144390 Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6807 of 2023 Applicant :- Shiv Ram Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Lavkush Kumar Shukla,Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant, Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.85 of 2003, under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., Police Station Baksa, District Jaunpur, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to be the manager of the institution in the year 2003 and had resigned from the post on 11.02.2002, as such the informant herein was posted as officiating manager in light of the said resignation. Subsequent to it, the Management Committee did not approve the resignation letter and the applicant was asked to continue as manager on 01.03.2003. The same day, an FIR is stated to have been instituted at the behest of the said officiating manager against the applicant of having committed forgery, whereby the applicant is stated to have filed a fake FIR showing having lost certain documents of the Management Committee.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is an 84 year old person having already undergone angioplasty. The matter is pending before certain forums since then. Learned counsel has further stated that in the present case, the applicant had protested to the summoning order and the same was dismissed by the court concerned vide order dated 23.05.2023. The applicant has preferred a petition U/S 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court against the said summoning order dated 15.04.2004 and the rejection of the said recall application, which is pending before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the criminal history of three cases assigned to the applicant stands explained as in one case, the anticipatory bail application has been rejected and in other two cases, the applicant had filed petitions U/S 482 Cr.P.C. and they were dismissed for want of prosecution and the applicant had preferred a recall application in the said petitions U/S 482 Cr.P.C. The matter is to take possession of the Management Committee of the institution and the applicant has been deprived of his valuable rights, as such the informant herein is now the president of the Management Committee and has taken possession of the day today affairs of the institution. The applicant has no other criminal antecedents to his credit. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the criminal history has not been explained as in one case, the anticipatory bail application has been rejected and in other two cases also, he has not been enlarged on bail rather has even failed in the petitions filed U/S 482 Cr.P.C., which stands rejected, as such he is not entitled for bail in the light of the judgment of this Court passed in Shivam vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2021 SCC OnLine All 264.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that criminal history of the applicant has not been explained and he has not been enlarged on bail in any of the cases and also taking into consideration the judgment of this Court passed in Shivam (supra), I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
9. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected.
10. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of anticipatory bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
(Krishan Pahal, J.) Order Date :- 20.7.2023 Ravi Kant