Dismissed

Ramakant Pal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2022ABAIL/535/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court observed that the applicant absconded and failed to surrender despite a prior direction. Consequently, with IPC proceedings under Section 82 initiated, the court held it was not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and rejected the prayer.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application rejected; coercive proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. remained subsisting.

Ramakant Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 535 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ramakant Pal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Lavkush Kumar Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Lavkush Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned Brief Holder appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Ramakant Pal, seeking anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Case Crime No. 124 of 2018, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506, 406, 120B I.P.C., Police Station- Jafrabad, District Jaunpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the first informant is the wife of brother of the applicant. The allegations are totally false and vague. It is argued that investigation in the matter has concluded after which charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and other co-accused persons. Learned counsel has argued that the entire investigation has been done in a cursory manner without properly looking to the fact. The case of the applicant is that there was a dispute with regards to property between the first informant and the applicant and other family members. It is argued that during the course of investigation the applicant and three co-accused persons had challenged the F.I.R. before this Court in a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 74 of 2019(Ramakant Pal and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) in which vide order dated 07.1.2019 a Division Bench of this Court was pleased to direct that till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. petitioners therein shall not be arrested. It is argued that the parties have entered into compromise and have settled their dispute out of court, copy of said compromise has been placed before Court which is annexure no. 12 to the affidavit and para-37 of the affidavit has also been placed for the same. It is argued that the first informant has been given a cheque by her father-in-law in lieu of terms of settlement. The said compromise was entered into between the parties on 24.12.2021. It is argued that after submission of charge sheet the applicant has been summoned by the trial court. The applicant is having no criminal history as stated in para-44 of the affidavit.

¶8

Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the first informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is argued that against the charge sheet dated 15.2.2019 and the order of summoning dated 8.5.2019 and also against the entire proceedings of the case, the applicant had filed an Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 21112 of 2019 (Ramakant Pal vs. State of U.P. and another) which

¶9

was disposed of vide order dated 29.5.2019 with the direction that in case the applicant surrenders within 30 days from the date of order and applies for bail, his bail application shall be adjudicated and decided by the court below with speaking and reasoned order, strictly in accordance with law. For a period of 30 days, coercive action against the applicant was stayed. It is argued that even thereafter the applicant did not honour the order and did not appear before the trial court as was observed in the said order in the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶10

It is argued that the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have already been undertaken against the applicant since he had been absconding in the present matter. It is argued that as per the settled law the present anticipatory bail application is not maintainable as the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have already been undertaken. It is prayed the prayer for anticipatory bail be rejected.

¶11

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records it is evident that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and there are allegations against him. The compromise is much after the rejection of Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. of the applicant by this Court. The applicant even did not honour the observations of the Court for surrendering and applying for bail as was observed and directed in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. The proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have been undertaken.

¶12

Looking to facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and gravity of offence and particularly the applicant has been absconding since long and did not honour the observations of this Court and the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have already been undertaken, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on anticipatory bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is rejected.

¶14

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 21.2.2022 Naresh

¶16

Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR Date: 2022.02.22 18:01:48 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramakant Pal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakant Pal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sufiyan Vs State of U.P.

Sumit Vs State of U.P.

Rohini Singh@ Nepali Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajeev Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Mitthu Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Aquib Vs State of U.P.