Allowed

Dr. Mohit Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2022ABAIL/4226/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to Dr. Mohit Kumar in a case involving IPC offences and SC/ST Act allegations. Despite a prior rejection based on maintainability, the Court held that the SC/ST bar did not apply as allegations were not made in public and the IO found them prima facie not made out.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties.

Dr. Mohit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4226 of 2022 Applicant :- Dr. Mohit Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akanksha Yadav,Hemant Kumar Srivastava,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Prem Prakash Yadav, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Hemant Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶4

By means of present anticipatory bail application, the applicant has shown his apprehension of arrest in Case Crime No. 304 of 2019 u/s 420, 406, 504, 506, 354A, 467, 468, 471 IPC & 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, P.S. Cantt, District Allahabad.

¶5

This is the second anticipatory bail application inasmuch as first anticipatory bail application bearing Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 9971 of 2021 has been rejected by this Court on 21.6.2021 on the ground of maintainability, in view of the bar of section 18 and 18A(2) of SC/ST Act. Learned Senior Advocate has explained the fact that on the date when this case was rejected i.e. 21.6.2021 the hearing of the case was being done virtually but the learned counsel could not receive the proper link, therefore, he could not appear and explain the objections so raised by learned AGA regarding maintainability of the anticipatory bail application. He has submitted that the learned AGA at that point of time has not properly placed the dictum of Apex Court in re: Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 inasmuch as in view of judgement passed in Prithvi Raj Chauhan (supra) the bar of section 18 and 18-A(2) could not be attracted in the present case as the allegation relating to the SC/ST has not been made in a public view and even as per prosecution story except the complainant and the present applicant none has heard such words / caste related words.

¶6

So as to substantiate his arguments learned Senior Advocate has drawn attention of this Court towards contents of F.I.R. as well as Annexure no. 12 which is a statement of the informant / complainant wherein no specific allegations attracting the provisions of SC/ST Act has been made. He has also drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure no. 13 which is a relevant page of case

¶7

diary by means of which the I.O. has clearly indicated that the main allegation on which the F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant do not prima-facie made out but section 354A / 406 IPC as well as section 3(2)(v)A SC/ST Act are prima-facie made out. Therefore, the learned Senior Advocate has submitted that mainly allegations were related to section 419, 420, 467, 468, 354(B), 504, 506, 190, 511 IPC but except sections so indicated above all other sections, as per opinion of the I.O., do not primafacie made out against the present applicant.

¶8

Learned Senior Advocate has submitted that so far as the allegations relating to sections 354(B) and 406 IPC are concerned those allegations are false and misconceived and has been leveled against the present applicant having ulterior and extraneous design in the mind of the complainant / informant and so far as the allegations of SC/ST Act are concerned those allegations are not made out in view of dictum of Prithvi Raj Chauhan (supra) .

¶9

He has further submitted that charge-sheet has yet not been filed, therefore, the present applicant is apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No. 304 of 2019 u/s 420, 406, 504, 506, 354A, 467, 468, 471 IPC & 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, P.S. Cantt, District Allahabad.

¶10

Learned Senior Advocate has also submitted that, however, the first anticipatory bail application of the present applicant was rejected on the ground of maintainability, practically ex-parte but even then there is no bar in filing second anticipatory bail application.

¶11

It is further submitted that the applicant is cooperating with the investigation and he has given undertaking that he shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted.

¶12

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the applicant but could not dispute the same.

¶13

Therefore, without entering into the merits of the issue and considering the fact that prima-facie the allegations relating to SC/ST Act are not made out in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Prithvi Raj Chauhan (supra) , however, subject to the final outcome of the investigation, most of the sections, as per the opinion of I.O. are prima facie not made out and also considering the undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and

¶14

present applicant is having no criminal history of any kind whatsoever, I find it appropriate that the liberty of the present applicant may be protected till filing of Police report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C.

¶15

Therefore, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant- Dr. Mohit Kumar shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority/ court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶17

that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶18

that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶19

that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant;

¶20

that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶21

that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶22

that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶23

that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶24

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application is disposed of .

¶25

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶26

Order Date :- 11.7.2022/Om.

¶27

Digitally signed by OM PRAKASH MISHRA Date: 2022.07.12 19:25:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dr. Mohit Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Mohit Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Smt. Parveen and 5 Others Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Arif Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Toni Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sumit Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Anupam @ Maunu Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Radheyshyam and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.