Allowed

Vijay Pal Singh @ Tenta v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2022ABAIL/304/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a section 438 CrPC application. The applicant alleged the charges stemmed from a voluntary elopement and opposed marriage. The court found merit in the submissions and held the applicant entitled to bail, citing jail overcrowding and the maintainability of the application under UP amendments.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120-B IPC on a personal bond with two sureties.

Vijay Pal Singh @ Tenta Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 304 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vijay Pal Singh @ Tenta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mata Pher Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Mata Pher Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Nafees Ahmad, learned A.G.A. through video conferencing mode.

¶6

Shri Mata Pher Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant contends that it is undisputed that the victim is a major. The victim was on intimate terms with the applicant and eloped with him to get married. She got married with the applicant of her own volition. She travelled to various places with the applicant. She has been a consenting party all along. The marriage was in the teeth of opposition from her family members. The applicant and the victim faced threat to their lives from the family members of the victim. They resided together as husband and wife all along. The applicant and the victim approached this Court and also appeared before this Court on one occasion. This is the crux of the case which is evident from the order passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition

¶7

No.5389 of 2011 (Uma Bharti and another Vs. State of U.P. and others) rendered on 18.04.2011. The victim never raised an alarm or resisted the applicant though she was present before this Court during the writ proceedings. It is also contended that the proceedings against the other accused persons have been stayed by this Court in Application U/s 482 No.25624 of 2011 (Smt. Shanti Devi and others Vs. State of U.P. and another).

¶8

Shri Mata Pher Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the F.I.R. was lodged at the behest of the parents of the victim whose opposition to the marriage has continued over the years. The F.I.R. was lodged only to deflect attention from the conduct of the victim. The instant case is an abuse of the process of the court. Apart from the instant case, the applicant does not have any criminal history. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶9

Learned AGA could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. He,

¶10

however, does not dispute the fact that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case

¶11

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No.1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶12

I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶13

By virtue of the amendment of the Cr.P.C. made in the State of U.P., the provisions for anticipatory bail application are not applicable only to certain offences specified therein. The instant offences are not in the excepted category and the anticipatory bail application is found to be maintainable. The relevant provision of Section 438 (6) of the Cr.P.C. is extracted hereunder:

¶14

"438 (6) Provisions of this section shall not be applicable,--

¶15

(a) to the offences arising out of,--

¶16

(i) the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967;

¶17

(ii) the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985;

¶18

(iii) the Official Secrets Act, 1923;

¶19

(iv) the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

¶20

(b) in the offences, in which death sentence can be awarded."

¶21

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the following order is being passed.

¶22

The applicant-Vijay Pal Singh @ Tenta is granted anticipatory bail in Case No.1385 of 2011 (State Vs. Om Prakash and others), arising out of Case Crime No.94 of 2011, under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 120-B IPC, Police Station-Akrabad, DistrictAligarh, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Aligarh, till the conclusion of the trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶23

(i) The applicant shall attend the court proceedings as and when required;

¶24

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise or to any

¶25

person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶26

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.

¶27

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail before this Court.

¶28

In case any false facts have been stated on behalf of the applicant or material facts have been suppressed, the State or any concerned party may file an application for recall of this order.

¶29

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶30

Order Date :- 3.2.2022 Ashish Tripathi

Vijay Pal Singh @ Tenta v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Pal Singh @ Tenta v. State of U.P.

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

Jhagadu and Another Vs State of U.P and Another

Bablu Vs State of U.P.

Gurdeep Vs State of U.P.

Vishal Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Islam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naushad Vs State of U.P.