Allahabad High Court
Anupam vs State Of U.P. on 7 January, 2025
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:2956 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46691 of 2021 Applicant :- Anupam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhay Krishn,Ajay Kumar Pathak,Prashant Shukla,Rateesh Singh,S.P.S. Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. Heard Sri Prashant Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
2. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Anupam, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.193 of 2020, under Section 147, 148, 149, 304 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Sikandrarau, District Hathras.
3. This is a second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 1.2.2021 passed by this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2433 of 2021 (Anupam Vs. State of U.P.). The said order reads as under:-
"Heard Sri Rateesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jitendra Singh learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Anupam, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 193 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 304 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Kotwali Sikandraraou, District Hathras.
On 25.1.2021 this Court passed the following order:-
"Vakalatnama filed by Sri Jitendra Singh on behalf of the first informant is taken on record.
Heard Sri Rateesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Satish Kumar Singh, learned brief holder for the State.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that 03 co-accused namely Satendra, Than Singh @ Pintu and Virendra have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 13.01.2021, 20.01.2021 and 21.01.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 40258 of 2020, 1017 of 2021 and 48537 of 2020. The copy of the said orders is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the first informant states that while going for pairvi in the present case before the District Court, Vinay Kumar the son of the deceased of the present matter was assaulted by the applicant with a knife for which a first information report being Case Crime No. 0351 of 2020 dated 16.10.2020, under Section 307 I.P.C., Police Station Hathras Kotwali, District Hathras has been registered in which Vinay Kumar has received serious injury on his neck. He states that 04 days time be granted to him to file supplementary affidavit annexing the said first information report and the injury report of Vinay Kumar.
Time as prayed for is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 01.02.2021 as fresh."
In compliance of the said order a supplementary affidavit on behalf of the first informant has been filed today in Court which is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that in addition to three co-accused namely Satendra, Than Singh@Pintu, Virendra who have been granted bail, one other co-accused namely Mukesh has also been granted bail vide order dated 29.1.2021 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No. 39174 of 2020, Mukesh Vs. State of U.P., copy of which has been produced before the Court which is taken on record. It is argued that role of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused persons who have been granted bail and as such parity is claimed. Even further learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is a lady and is involved in one other case being Case Crime No. 0351 of 2020 which has been stated in para-23 of the affidavit.
Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant has placed the F.I.R. of Case Crime No. 0351 of 2020 which is annexure no. S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit and has argued that the applicant has been named along with one other unknown woman but the applicant has been assigned the role of causing knife injury to the injured Vinay Kumar Sharma who is the son of the deceased of the present case.
Learned counsel for the first informant has further placed annexure no.S.A.-2 to the said supplementary affidavit being medical examination report of the said person and has argued that he has received injury in the middle of his neck in which four stitches have been placed by the doctor while providing first aid. It is argued that as such the version in the said case cannot be disputed and the injury is on the vital part of the injured person. It is argued that the conduct of the applicant is such that the argument of co-accused persons being enlarged on bail is not applicable to her as she has assaulted the son of the deceased who had gone to the district court for pairvi on the date on which the said case was fixed and even at that time the applicant was absconding in the said case is even mentioned in the F.I.R. itself.
Learned A.G.A. has adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the first informant. Both the learned counsels have argued that the bail application be rejected.
Learned counsel for the applicant has in rebuttal, argued that the doctor who has medically examined the injured Vinay Kumar Sharma and has provided first aid to him, has opined the injury to be simple in nature. It is argued that as such the bail be granted to the applicant.
Looking to fact and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of six months without giving any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C., subject to any legal impediment.
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."
4. During the pendency of the present second bail application, an application dated 31.7.2024 for withdrawal of the second bail application along with an affidavit of Than Singh, S/o Mahendrapal declaring himself as father of the applicant has been filed supporting the withdrawal application. The prayer in the said withdrawal application No.14 of 2024 is as under:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application to permit the applicant to withdraw the aforesaid second bail application as not pressed, and or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case".
5. On 21.10.2024, this Court passed the following order:-
"1. Heard Sri Prashant Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the State has drawn attention of the Court to an application for withdrawal dated 31.07.2024.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present withdrawal application has been filed without the consent of the applicant. He submits that he shall be filing an application and affidavit for dismissal of the same.
4. Perusal of the said withdrawal application goes to show that the said application has been filed by Sri Ajay Kumar Pathak, Advocate. Sri Pathak is not present, when the matter is taken up.
5. In view of the same, it would be expedient that a report be called for from the applicant, who is confined in jail since 27.10.2024, through C.J.M. concerned regarding the fact whether she is desirous of getting present bail application decided or wants to the same be dismissed as withdrawn.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant shall give written notice about this order to Sri Ajay Kumar Pathak within a week who is directed to appear on the next date in the matter.
7. Let the matter be listed on 22.11.2024.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant shall file compliance affidavit within ten days."
6. Since the attention of the Court was drawn on the said withdrawal application by the order aforesaid, it was desired that a report be called for from the applicant through C.J.M. concerned whether she is desirous of getting present bail application decided or wants to the same be dismissed as withdrawn. The office has placed before the Court a letter sent by the C.J.M. Hathras through report dated 18.12.2024.
7. This Court has perused the said letter of the In-charge C.J.M., Hathras dated 18.12.2024 in compliance of the order dated 21.10.2024 of this Court. Perusal of the same shows that it is accompanied by a report of the Senior Superintendent, District Jail Aligarh dated 18.12.2024, an application dated 18.12.2024 of the applicant Anupam duly certified by the Jailor, District Jail Aligarh on the said date. A perusal of the said documents go to show that the accused-applicant has desired that the said matter be decided on merits through a lawyer appointed by her. Since the accused-applicant is represented by a lawyer, the matter is thus proceeded to be argued and decided.
8. The application for withdrawal although is not being pressed and learned counsel who has filed it is not present but perusal of the same goes to show that the affidavit is of Than Singh declaring himself to be as father of the applicant, the said fact is incorrect inasmuch as the applicant is the daughter of Mukesh and not of Than Singh. The recital thus is not true and correct. The application for withdrawal thus stands rejected.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order dated 1.2.2021 passed by this Court rejecting the bail application of the applicant and expediting the trial to be concluded within six months was filed before the trial court concerned on 5.4.2022. He has placed before the Court the certified copy of the application filed for the same before the trial court which is annexure no.S.A-1 to the Supplementary Affidavit dated 8.9.2024. While placing order sheet of the trial court concerned which is certified copy from 5.4.2022 to 5.8.2024, it is submitted that the trial in the present matter is still pending and has not yet concluded. It is further submitted that the order rejecting first bail application of the applicant takes into account an incident of which FIR was lodged as Case Crime No.0351 of 2020, under Section 307 IPC, Police Station Hathras Kotwali, District Hathras which was previously disclosed in the bail application and in the said case, the applicant has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.9.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6722 of 2021 (Anupam Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the same is annexed as annexure no.4 to the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 27.10.2020 and as such has remained in jail for about 4 years and 2 months and the trial is yet not complete. It is argued that the applicant is a lady and is entitled to the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. The applicant be thus directed to be released on bail.
10. Per contra learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first bail of the applicant has been rejected on merits by this Court. It is submitted that this Court while rejecting first bail application has considered the fact that the applicant was involved in another case in which she had been the main assailant and assaulted an injured Vinay Kumar on his neck by a knife. It is submitted that since the trial in the present matter is going on and the testimony of witnesses are to be recorded, the present bail application be rejected as the release of the applicant may have an adverse effect on the trial.
11. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 1.2.2021. While rejecting the first bail application, this Court had expedited the trial and directed the same to be concluded as expeditiously as possible preferably with a period of six months. The order of this Court was filed before the trial court on 5.4.2022. The admitted fact is that the trial has not concluded and is still pending. In so far as the other case wherein the applicant was assigned the role of assault by a knife on an injured is concerned, the applicant has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court. Despite an order of this Court expediting the trial and the same being filed before the trial court, the trial is still pending. The applicant is in jail for about 4 years and 2 months. The applicant is a lady.
12. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial 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.
13. Let the applicant-Anupam, 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 she 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 her 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 her, 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 her 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.
14. 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.
15. The bail application is allowed.
(Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 7.1.2025 Gaurav Kuls