Allahabad High Court
Abhimanyu Singh Badgujar vs State Of U.P. on 9 December, 2019
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54615 of 2019 Applicant :- Abhimanyu Singh Badgujar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Piyush Sinha,Chandan Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh and Mr. Syed Imran Ibrahim, learned Advocates on behalf of first informant is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State, learned counsel appearing on behalf of first informant and perused the record of the case.
By means of this application, the applicant Abhimanyu Singh Badgujar, who is involved in Case Crime No. 0595 of 2019, under sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, police station Surajpur, district Gautam Budh Nagar, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant Abhimanyu Singh Badgujar is the husband of first informant Smt. Jyotsana Badgujar. The marriage of applicant was solemnized on 23.04.2014 with the first informant, but on account of acrimonious relation, there are some matrimonial dispute between the parties concerned. He further submits that earlier a first information report dated 06.08.2012 registered at Case Crime No. 31 of 2012, under sections 323, 504, 506, 420, 376 IPC was lodged against the applicant and other family members by the first informant, which has been challenged by the applicant by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 13707 of 2012 (Abhimanyu vs State of U.P. and others) before the Division Bench of this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 19.09.2012, in which the applicant has surrendered before the court below and granted bail vide order dated 16.10.2012 by the court of Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in Bail Application No. 2084 of 2012. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet dated 16.11.2012 in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 31 of 2012, under sections 420, 323, 504, 506, 376 IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Mahila Thana, district Gautam Budh Nagar, which has also been challenged by the applicant by filing Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 18905 of 2014 (Abhimanyu Bargujar vs State of U.P. and another), the same was allowed vide order dated 23.05.2014 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by quashing the proceedings against the applicant on the ground of amicable settlement arrived at between the applicant and first informant. The proceedings of charge sheets dated 21.04.2013 and 18.11.2012 against other in-laws of first informant have also been quashed on the same ground by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 17.07.2014 in Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. Nos. 26024 of 2013 and 27726 of 2013. Thereafter, another first information report dated 15.09.2017 was also lodged by the first informant registered as Case Crime No. 138 of 2017, under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC at police station Mahila Thana, district Gautam Budh Nagar, in which the applicant and other family members have also been granted bail by the court below vide orders dated 03.10.2019 and 04.10.2019 for offence under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 and 325 IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant further alleged that a Writ Petition No. 4514 (M/B) of 2014 (Jyotsna Bhatt and another vs State of U.P. and others) was filed by the first informant Jyotsna Bhatt along with one Kisley Chaudhary, for a direction to the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful married life, before the Division Bench of Lucknow Bench of this Court, which was finally disposed of vide order dated 06.06.2014 with a direction that the respondents shall not interfere with the peaceful living of petitioners therein, unless first information report is registered against them.
Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that as per prosecution case, main allegation against the applicant is that he has taken the benefit of aforesaid order dated 06.06.2014 passed by the Division Bench of Lucknow Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4514 (M/B) of 2014 (Jyotsna Bhatt and another vs State of U.P. and others) in a case registered as Case Crime No. 138 of 2017, under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 and 325 IPC, at police station Mahila Thana, district Gautam Budh Nagar and in Complaint Case No. 942 of 2017 (Smt. Jyotsana Badgujar vs Abhimanyu Singh Badgujar and others), under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, lodged/initiated by the first informant in the year 2017, while the said order dated 06.06.2014 was already recalled on 01.09.2014 by the Division Bench of Lucknow Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 72527 of 2017 filed in Misc. Bench No. 4514 of 2014. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that Recall Application No. 72527 of 2017 filed by the first informant for recalling the order dated 06.06.2014 has also been dismissed for want of prosecution by the Division Bench of Lucknow Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.08.2019. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the allegation of taking benefit of aforesaid order dated 06.06.2014 has also been made against applicant as well as other family members of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that co-accused Vijay Singh Badgujar, who is the father-in-law of first informant, has already been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 52775 of 2019 vide order dated 03.12.2019. On the said fact, it is submitted that the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Vijay Singh Badgujar, who is father-in-law of first informant, as the allegation of taking benefit of aforesaid order dated 06.06.2014 has also been made against the father-in-law as well as the applicant.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case with some ulterior motive. He next submitted that apart from bald allegations made by the first informant against the applicant, no evidence whatsoever is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the applicant in the commission of alleged offence, which is a product of malice and bundle of lies. It is also alleged that the applicant is facing detention since 20.09.2019. It is next contended that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence.Learned counsel for the applicant lastly submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.
Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned Additional Government Advocate have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the case of present applicant is distinguishable on the ground that applicant being husband is the main beneficiary, but did not dispute the fact that benefit of aforesaid order dated 06.06.2014 was also availed by co-accused Vijay Singh Badgujar and Smt. Bina, who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of first informant as well as applicant. They also did not dispute that co-accused Vijay Singh Badgujar has been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after giving opportunity of hearing as well as filing of short counter affidavit by the informant.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicant Abhimanyu Singh Badgujar, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. It is further clarified that the trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.
Order Date :- 9.12.2019 Sazia