Allahabad High Court
Atul Singh @ Prashant Singh vs State Of U.P. on 9 September, 2022
Author: Suresh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved on: 31.08.2022 Delivered on: 09.09.2022 Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3297 of 2022 Applicant :- Atul Singh @ Prashant Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pusp Raj Singh,R.P.S. Chauhan Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard Mr. Dharmendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State as well as Mr. R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the material available on record.
2. The present first anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No. 155 of 2012, under Sections 395, 427, 506 IPC, Police Station- Aung, District- Fatehpur.
3. Brief fact of the case is that the FIR was lodged by the first informant against the applicant with the allegations that on 16-12-2012 at about 12:00 pm, Achal Singh and Atul Singh (applicant) along with 20-25 persons reached at the plot no. 182 and demolished the factory. When one watchman namely Anil Sachan and the complainant's father raised objections, they have threatened for their life. It has further been alleged that after demolition they took away entire machinery and articles of the said factory. Thereafter on information given by the said Anil Sachan, the complainant Pradhumn Singh lodged the First Information Report on 17-12-2012 at 10:00 pm against the applicant and co-accused Achal Singh as well as other 20-25 unknown persons.
4. After registration of the F.I.R., the applicant and co-accused Atul Singh filed a criminal writ petition no. 1867 of 2013 before this Court and this Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case on 14-2-2013 had granted the stay of the arrest to them during investigation. It is further stated that during investigation on 19-12-2012 and 20-12-2012, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement U/s 161 CrPC of the first informant Pradhumn Singh, Anil Sachan, Kishan Lal Pasi and Bharat Singh.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant states that the first informant developed prosecution case and added new five accused persons including the applicant in his statement and on 25-12-2012, the Investigating Officer recorded a statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of one Ram Baran Singh father of the first informant who also supported the statement of the first informant. Thereafter on 7-5-2013, the second statement of the first informant was recorded by the Investigating Officer in which he repeated the earlier statement dated 19-12-2012.
6. It is further stated that on 26.7.2013, the I.O. recorded the statement of Sunil Kumar Singh S/o Sri Babu Singh who was the owner of the alleged land in which he stated that the first informant and his family members are a land grabber. He further stated that he sold out his land with a factory in favour of Smt. Anjana Singh W/o Achal Singh (co-accused) and Smt. Saroja w/o Ram Prakash Singh in the year of 2008. He further stated that an F.I.R. has also been lodged on 14-3-2010 against one Ajay Singh real brother of the first informant which was registered as case crime no. 238 of 2008, U/s 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. at P.S. Bindaki, Fatehpur.
7. It is stated by the counsel for the applicant is that prior to institution of the instant criminal case, the informant proceeded against the applicant before civil and revenue forum with clear malafide intention. It is further argued that in the year of 1988, one Sunil Kumar Singh S/o owner late Babu Singh purchased one bigha of land out of which falling within plot no. 183-Kha from his father through a registered sale deed dated 25-1-1988 in the name of his company namely S.K. Wires & Implement Private Ltd., in which he was one of director. Eventually, the said Sunil Kumar Singh raised a factory over the said plot no. 183-Kha by constructing building over a part of land and placed his machinery, plants etc. after obtaining loan of Rs. 5.5 Lacs from Union Bank of India, Permat Branch, Kanpur by mortgaging his land plot no. 183-Kha.
8. The learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that subsequently in the year 2008, the said co-accused Achal Singh and one co-accused Ram Prakash Singh jointly purchased an area of 0.1210 Hectare of plot no. 183-Kha from said Sunil Kumar Singh through a registered a sale deed dated 15.10.2008 in favour of their wives.
9. The learned counsel for the applicant states that the allegations of existence of factory or lying of machinery etc. over the plot no. 182 belonging to informant were completely false and concocted because the co-accused Achal Singh enquired about the said factory of the first informant and he got knowledge that the first informant with the object of obtaining fraudulent soft loan from U.P. Khadi and Gramodhog Board had falsely got registered as a society in the name of Vijeta Gram Udyog allegedly operating from his residence at 556, Avas Vikas Colony, Fatehpur by showing falsely the name of several persons as member of said society.
10. It is further stated that the first informant was messing the fact of false existence of his alleged factory or machinery lying allegedly over his plot No. 182 which was with the intention of setting scores with co-accused persons namely, Achal Singh and Ram Prakash Singh who had purchased lands adjacent to the aforesaid plot.
11. It is further stated that after submission of charge sheet, the applicant along with other co-accused persons filed a Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 no. 34970 of 2014 before this Court but this Court directed the applicants to surrender and appear before the court below and their bail application shall be decided in view of the Amrawati vs. State of U.P. and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. state of U.P. and thereafter on 29-8-2014, after expiry of 30 days this Court again extended the time on 10-4-2015 for a period of 30 days.
12. The counsel for the applicant has further argued that the plot no. 182 was sold by Babu Singh (father of Sunil Kumar) to the first informant on 13-12-1995 through a register sale deed. Since then, this plot is being used for agriculture purpose and there is only chaff (Bhusi) store is shown, whereas the alleged plot no. 183-Kha is shown in the name of S.K. Wires Private Ltd. in the same Khasra.
13. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the alleged incident took place on 16-12 2012 at 12 to 1:00 pm, but the FIR was lodged on 17-12-2012 at 10:00 pm while police station is situated only five Kilometers from the place of occurrence without any plausible explanation for delay. It is further submitted that the applicant has no any motive in this case, but he has been falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of political pressure by the rival persons. It is also submitted that there is neither any kind of recovery from the possession of the applicant nor on the pointing out of the applicant.
14. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that several civil litigations are going on in the court below concerned between the first informant and the said co-accused Achal Singh. Thus, the applicant has no concern with the present case.
15. Further submission is that after submission of charge-sheet, the applicant along with other co-accused filed an Application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. No. 13584 of 2016 and 20401 of 2016 before this Court against the summoning order as well as non-bailable warrant, but both the application was finally disposed of with a direction to the applicant to surrender before the court below. It is further submitted that being aggrieved by the order dated 26.07.2016 passed by the ACJM, Fatehpur the applicant again filed an Application U/S 482 CrPC No. 31777 of 22016 before this Court and this Court has stayed further proceeding of the present case on 21.10.2016 on the basis of compromise dated 25.07.2016.
16. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the aforesaid Application U/s 482 CrPC No. 31777 of 2016 is still pending before this Court for the final disposal and as such after expiry of the interim order, the learned Magistrate issued a non-bailable warrant as well as process U/s 82 Cr.P.C against the applicant.
17. It is stated by the counsel for the applicant that except the present case, there are five criminal cases registered against the applicant which are as under:
i) Case Crime No. 35 of 2003 u/s 307, 427 IPC, P.S. Malwan,District Fatehpur.
ii) Case Crime No. 222 of 2003 u/s 408, 409, 420, 467 IPC P.S. Bindaki, District Fatehpur.
iii) Case Crime No. 06 of 2003 u/s 467, 468, 471, 420 IPC. P.S. Bindaki, District Fatehpur.
iv) Case Crime No. 07 of 2003 u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC P.S. Bindaki, District Fatehpur.
v) Case Crime No. 280 of 1999 u/s 147, 452, 353, 504, 506 IPC P.S. Kotwali, District Fatehpur.
18. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that only the present case is pending against the applicant and rest of the said cases are about 20 years old. The case is of civil nature as the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to land dispute.
19. It is further submitted that as per compromise dated 25.07.2016, it has been clearly proved that it is a civil nature case but the first informant has tried to give colour as an offence while there is a dispute of boundary demarcation between land of both the parties. It is further submitted that father of the applicant namely Achal Singh who is also co-accused in the present case has already died in the month of September 2020 and at present, the applicant is ready to settle the present land dispute with the first informant.
20. Per contra, the learned AGA as well as the counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted that the applicant has not come with clean hand. The charge-sheet against the applicant was submitted on 1.6.2014. After taking cognizance, summoning order was passed by the court below. Being aggrieved with this summoning order, the applicant approached this Court by means of Application U/s 482 No. 34970 of 2014 which was disposed of with the direction to the applicant to appear and surrender within 30 days. But the applicant failed to appear before the court below. Consequently, N.B.W. was issued by the trial court. Being aggrieved with this N.B.W. order, the applicant approached this Court seeking quashing of N.B.W. order dated 19.03.2015 by means of Application U/s 482 No. 8685 of 2015 but the same was dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- on 08.04.2015. Again the applicant and other co-accused against the order of ACJM, Fatehpur dated 20.04.2016 approached this Court by means of Application U/s 482 No. 13584 of 2016 which was decided with the direction to the applicant to surrender before the court below within two months and obtain bail vide order dated 3.5.2016. Again the applicant and other co-accused approached this Court by means of Application U/s 482 No. 20401 of 2016 seeking the quashing of order dated 1.6.2016 and 14.6.2016 passed by ACJM and this Court passed the order on 14.7.2016. The relevant portion of which is as under:
"But as the applicants have not surrendered before the court as yet and have not obtained their bail despite ample opportunity having been given to them, the court below shall be at liberty to issue fresh warrants or any coercive measures against the applicants as it may deem fit in order to procure the attendance of the applicants-accused.
With the aforesaid observations this application is disposed of.
It is hoped that the applicants shall keep it in mind that the solemn jurisdiction of this court is not meant to be misutilised in order to find ways and means to somehow evade the process of law under the garb of some judicial order. Protective directions granted by this court are in the nature of a benevolent exercise of its judicial power intending to safeguard the constitutional rights of individual liberty which are sacrosanct in the view of this court. This Court in order to meet the ends of justice exercises its inherent jurisdiction and ungrudgingly comes forward in appropriate cases to extend its facilitating arm to the accused so that he may submit to the jurisdiction of the court without being harassed by any kind of executive high handedness of the police. But this judicial magnanimity must not be mistaken or misunderstood to be a ploy which can ever be allowed to be abused as a method to gain time and keep fleeing from justice. For any such unscrupulous accused the law courts have enough powers and strong arms to catch them and be brought to justice."
21. It is further submitted that on 5.7.2016, proceeding u/s 82 CrPC/NBW was issued against the applicant by the court below. Ultimately, in the aforesaid Application U/s 482 No. 31777 of 2016, the matter was settled by way of compromise with terms and conditions and this Court again passed order for no coercive action to be taken against the applicant. But after some time the applicant and other co-accused have denied the terms and conditions of the aforesaid compromise and as such the stay granted to the applicant in the aforesaid application has already expired on 14.12.2018. Again on transfer application, interim order for no coercive was passed which was ultimately vacated on 21.10.2020 and thus, again coercive process was issued against the applicant and other co-accused. The anticipatory bail application of the co-accused Ram Prakash was already rejected by this Court in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 8124 of 2021 vide order dated 27.07.2021.
22. It is further stated that the charge-sheet against the applicant has already been submitted by the investigating officer. Since year 2014, till today the applicant is absconding and thus, he is evading the process. It is further submitted that despite several orders of this Court, the applicant has never surrendered before the court concerned and as such, coercive process has already been issued against the applicant. Thus, the application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.
23. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.
24. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, this is not a fit case for anticipatory bail.
25. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 9.9.2022 Shravan