Allahabad High Court
Shailesh Patel vs State Of U.P. on 16 December, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 2495
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 1 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35802 of 2020 Applicant :- Shailesh Patel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Prakash Singh,Raj Kiran Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Jai Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Mrs. Archana Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
The second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Shailesh Patel, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 1168 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149,504, 506, 302, 307, 386, 120B I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, registered at P.S. Cantt., District Varanasi.
The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 26.8.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13989 of 2020 on the ground that there was concealment of criminal history between the same party regarding which there was a reference of criminal case against the applicant in the F.I.R. of the present incident but the same was not detailed and explained in any of the paragraphs of the affidavit in support of first bail application. The order dated 26.8.2020 is extracted herein below:-
"Heard Sri Jai Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dewarshi Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri I.P.S. Rajpoot, learned A.G.A. For the State. Perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Shailesh Patel, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 1168 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 302, 307, 386, 120B I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, registered at P.S. Cantt., District Varanasi.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. The F.I.R. has been registered against two named persons namely Jhunna Pandit and Ravi Patel and there is reference of one more unknown person to have been involved in the present incident. It is stated that the name of the applicant was also not disclosed by the first informant.
It is further argued that subsequently the first informant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., copy of which is annexed as annexure no. 4 to the affidavit, has named the applicant and has assigned the role of exhortation to him. It is argued that the role of firing has been assigned to co-accused Shree Prakash @ Jhunna Pandit and Ravi Patel with pistols. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the role of the applicant is thus distinguishable with that of co-accused Shree Prakash@Jhunna Pandit and Ravi Patel, who have been assigned the specific role of firing with pistols as stated by the first informant Pradeep Kumar Patel. Further it is argued that the co-accused Jai Prakash Mishra@Monu has been granted bail vide order dated 18.6.2020 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11721 of 2020 (Jai Prakash Mishra@Monu vs.State of U.P.).
Criminal history of the applicant of one case being Case Crime No. 1132 of 2019, under Sections 147, 149, 364A, 386, 392, 34, 323, 506, 120B I.P.C.,P.S.- Cantt., District Varanasi has been disclosed and explained in para no. 19 of the affidavit in which the applicant has been granted bail vide order dated 18.2.2020 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7603 of 2020 (Shailesh Patel vs. State of U.P. ), copy of which is annexed as annexure no. 11 to the affidavit. Further it is stated that at the time of arrest of the applicant in the present matter, case under Section 307 I.P.C. and Sections 3/25 Arms Act have also been lodged against him showing firing on the police party in which also the applicant has been granted bail by the court below. The disclosure and explanation about the said cases has been given in para 20 of the affidavit. It is stated that both the said cases are false cases in which he has been falsely implicated.
Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that besides the said two cases as explained, the applicant has been instrumental in another incident also in which a case was registered being Case Crime No. 1442 of 2019 and a reference of which is mentioned in the F.I.R. itself but the same has not been detailed and explained in any of the paragraphs in the affidavit. It is stated that the same is a concealment on the part of the applicant.
The present application is thus rejected on the basis of concealment of criminal history that too in an incident between the same parties.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing."
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that now in the second bail application he has detailed and explained the said case which is actually Case Crime No. 1159 of 2019, under Sections 147, 452, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C., P.S.- Cantt., District- Varanasi and not Case Crime No. 1442 of 2019 in para-24 of the affidavit and the first information report of the same is annexed as annexure no. 16 to the affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed para-20 of the affidavit and has argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the said case and has been granted bail by the court below vide order dated 09.1.2020, copy of which is annexed as annexure no. 13 to the affidavit. From perusal of the same it transpires that the applicant has been granted bail by the order dated 09.1.2020 passed by C.J.M., Varanasi.
Learned counsel while pressing the case on merits has argued that the arguments as have been advanced by him in the first bail application are adopted and proceeds to argue that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and subsequently his implication in the matter has come in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the first informant wherein he has been assigned the role of exhortation only. Learned counsel has then placed paras- 19, 21, 22 of the affidavit wherein the criminal history of the applicant has been detailed and explained.
Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the said arguments.
After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant- Shailesh Patel, 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 shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
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.
The bail application is allowed.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
(Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 16.12.2020 Naresh