Allowed

Natthuram Prajapati v. State of U.P. AND2 Others

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2021ABAIL/12494/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding mining violations. The court imposed conditions including bail amount, surrender of passport, availability for interrogation, and non-decision on merits to aid investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties subject to conditions of availability, non-interference, and passport surrender.

Natthuram Prajapati Vs State of U.P. AND2… — Mining and Natural Resources | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12494 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Natthuram Prajapati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Ankur Chaurasia,Santosh Kumar Kesarwani

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶6

(1) Heard Sri Natthuram Prajapati, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

(2) The instant application is being moved by the applicant namely, Natthuram Prajapati invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in connection with Case Crime No. 389 of 2020 under Rule 3, 57, 70 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concessions) Rules,1963 and under sections 4, 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, P.S. Shankargarh, District Prayagraj/Allahabad.

¶8

(3) From the record it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court after getting his anticipatory bail rejected from the Court of Session vide order dated 16.03.2021.

¶9

(4) Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

¶10

(5) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has got no criminal antecedents and he has not undergone any imprisonment after conviction by any court of law in relation to any cognizable offence previously. An assurance was also advanced by learned counsel for the applicant on behalf of the applicant that he would render all requisite co-operation and assistance in the process of law and with the investigating agency and shall not create any hindrance to reach to its logical conclusion and shall not flee away from the course of justice.

¶11

(6) Learned counsel for the applicant has strenuously argued that the applicant has been made target just to besmirch his reputation and belittle them in the public estimate by the informant. Number of arguments were advanced by learned counsel for the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the accusation made in the FIR against the applicant by the informant. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgements in the cases of Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273; Joginder Kumar vs State of U.P. and others (1994) 4 SCC 260 and Sanaul Haque vs State of U.P. and another, 2008 Cri. LJ 1998, to buttress his contentions.

¶12

(7) In the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court has opined that the pith and core is that the police officer before arrest must put questions to himself, Why arrest?, Is it really required?, What purpose it will serve? What object it will achieve? If it is only after these questions are addressed and one or other conditions, as enumerated above, are satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. Before the arrest the police office should have a reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police officer has to satisfy further that the arrest is necessary for one or more purposes envisaged in sub-clauses (a) to (e) to Clause-1 of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶13

(8) In this backdrop of legal proposition, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though the applicant is named accused in the FIR under the aforesaid sections of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 with the allegation that he was an illegal participant of sand/minerals. It is further contended that as per the Section 22 of Mines and Minerals Act (Regulation and Development) Act, the present FIR is not maintainable.

¶14

(9) Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application by mentioning that though the applicant has got no criminal antecedents but there is nothing on record to satisfy that the police personnel are after the applicant to arrest them. The alleged apprehension on behalf of applicant is imaginary and unfounded one. Learned A.G.A. has also submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the applicant is not entitled for any relaxation from this Court.

¶15

(10) After considering the record of the case as available before the Court, in the light of rival submissions made at the Bar and keeping in view the nature and gravity of the accusation, antecedents of the applicant, his undertaking to make himself available to the authorities whenever required, the Court feels satisfied that it would be expedient to grant an order of anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant. Thus instant Anticipatory Bail stands ALLOWED.

¶16

(11) Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may be adversely affect the investigation and subsequent stage of the case, the Court directs that in the event of arrest of the applicant in aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer till the submission of report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by the investigating with the conditions that :

¶17

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for the interrogation by the police as and when required. The Investigating Officer of the case would give 48 hours prior notice or telephonically inform the concerned accusedapplicant to remain available to them for the purposes of interrogation and the accused-applicant is obliged to abide by such directions.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threats or comments to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the correct facts to the court or to the police officer.

¶19

(iii) The Investigating Officer of the case would make all necessary endeavour to gear up the investigation in utmost transparent and professional way and would try to conclude the same within a maximum period of 90 days. During this period the accused-applicant would not leave the State of Uttar Pradesh without informing the Investigating Officer of the case and sharing his contact number.

¶20

(iv) In the event the applicant is having his passport, they will have to surrender the same before the concerned SP/SSP of the District till the submission of report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C.

¶21

(12) In the event, the applicant breaches or attempts to breach any of the aforesaid conditions or wilfully violates above conditions or abstains himself from the investigation, it would be open for the Investigating Officer or the concerned authority to apply before the court of Session for cancellation of bail and the Court of Session has every liberty and freedom to revoke the anticipatory bail after recording the reasons for the same.

¶22

Order Date :- 22.7.2021 Nisha

¶23

Digitally signed by Justice Rahul Chaturvedi Date: 2021.07.28 14:42:42 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Natthuram Prajapati v. State of U.P. AND2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Natthuram Prajapati v. State of U.P. AND2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Purushottam and Another Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Prajapti and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.

Shakeel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Hadeesh @ Mohd Hadish Vs State of U.P.

Vipul Sharma @ Pipal Vs State of U.P.

Sunita Devi Vs State of U.P