Allowed

Prashant v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2022BAIL/44862/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of the applicant involved in a case where the FIR was registered based on an order quashed by a revision court, returning the matter for fresh hearing. The court noted the applicant's jail remand and the elimination of the FIR basis as factors.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in surety amount, subject to five standard conditions regarding bail conduct and cooperation in trial.

Prashant Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44862 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Prashant Opposite Party : - State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- V.S. Rajpoot Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mahendra Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J .

¶5

Heard Sri S.S. Rajpoot AOR No.A/S 1665/12 holding brief of Sri V.S. Rajpoot, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Avaneesh Kumar Shukla the learned AGA for the State and Sri Mahendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the complainant.

¶6

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant- Prashant for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.699 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, registered at Police StationSadar Bazar, District- Agra.

¶7

The bail application so preferred by the applicant has been rejected by the court below on 16.9.2021.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has sought to argue that the applicant had preferred an application for declaring himself to be juvenile and subsequently, the Juvenile Justice Board by virtue of its order dated 22.11.2014 declared the revisionist as a juvenile on the basis of documents which were made available by the applicant. However, subsequently the said matter travelled before the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.26, Agra and thereupon the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.26, Agra proceeded to pass an order dated 7.9.2020 reversing the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board on 22.11.2014. Consequently, the first information report has been sought to be lodged by Nempal Singh Reader, before Police Station- Sadar Bazar, District- Agra being FIR No.0699 on 19.11.2020 at 18:25 hours under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC against the applicant and his mother with an allegation that not only fraud but also various concealment and interpolation was sought to be made just in order to wriggle out the applicant from the clutches of the legal and penal action which were taken to be taken against him pursuant to the commission of crime.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the order dated 7.9.2020 passed by Additional District & Sessions

¶10

Judge, Court No.26, Agra reversing the order dated 22.11.2014 passed by Juvenile Justice Board was subject matter of challenge at the instance of the applicant being Prashant (Minor) in Criminal Revision No.566 of 2021 which eventually came to be decided on 8.9.2021 whereby where in under the order passed on 7.9.2020 which has been made the basis of the lodging of the FIR was quashed and the matter was remitted back to the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.26, Agra to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the revisionist. For the ready reference dated 8.9.2021 passed in Criminal Revision No.566 of 2021 as referred to above is being quoted hereinunder:-

¶11

"1. Heard Dr. Akhilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and Sri Mahendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party.

¶12

2. This Criminal Revision has been filed on behalf of the revisionist against order dated 07.09.2020 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.26, Agra, whereby, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge has reversed the finding of the Juvenile Justice Board as recorded on 22.11.2014, declaring the revisionist as a juvenile on the basis of educational documents made available by the complainant, in which according to the court below, date of birth of the revisionist is mentioned as 08.02.1993, whereas, date of incident was 25.01.2013.

¶13

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that mark-sheets of Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. as issued on 8th June, 2012 qua Prashant was produced, in which date of birth of Prashant is mentioned as 09.02.1995. It is submitted that when Juvenile Justice Board passed its order dated 22.11.2014, then it transpired that Sri Shyam Veer Singh, Headmaster of B.R. Junior High School, Kalwari Bodala, Agra had expressed that revisionist-Prashant son of Mukesh Kumar never studied in his school.

¶14

4. In view of said evidence, Juvenile Justice Board had directed the applicant to undergo medical examination and on the basis of medical examination report, and taking into consideration Rule-12 sub-Rule 3 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Prashant was declared to be a juvenile.

¶15

5. However, later on, appellant had produced actual High School Certificate along with Cross List No.0004749, in which, date of birth of the accused is mentioned as 08.02.1993 on the basis of which, appeal has been allowed.

¶16

6. However, it is submitted that revisionist was not made a party before the appellate court. In absence of the revisionist being made a party, no effective order could have been passed by the appellate court behind the back of the revisionist.

¶17

7. There is substance in the arguments put forth by Dr. Sharma, counsel for the revisionist. Therefore, impugned order is quashed. Matter is remanded to learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.26,

¶18

Agra to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the revisionist, who shall appear before the court concerned along with the complainant on 22.09.2021, for which, no separate notice will be required. On 22.09.2021, complainant shall implead the revisionist as a party in the memo of appeal and, thereafter, revisionist may file documentary evidence in support of his case and may also be permitted to cross-examine the witness of the documents produced by the complainant to support their contention that actual date of birth of the revisionist is 08.02.1993 and not 09.02.1995.

¶19

8. In above terms, Criminal Revision is allowed and disposed off."

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant has thus sought to argue that the entire basis for lodging of the FIR itself stands eliminated particularly in view of the fact that it was the order dated 7.9.2020 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.26, Agra which was made the basis of lodging of FIR and once the same stands quashed and there is no further order passed thereon, the applicant cannot be further detained in jail as he is confined in the jail since 27.7.2021.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn the attention of the Court towards paragraph 22 of the bail application that so as to contend that so far as Case Crime No.916 of 2012, under Sections 302, 201/34 and 404 IPC, is concerned the applicant has knocked the doors of this Court while filing the Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.37891 of 2013 in which he has been enlarged on bail on 9.1.2014 copy whereof is at page 25 of the bail application. Likewise he has further argued that so far as Case Crime No.66 of 2013 which purports to be under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster Act is concerned, he has been enlarged on bail by court below on 9.12.14 order whereof at page 28 of the bail application and so far as Case Crime No.699 of 2020 is concerned the same purports to be the present case and so far as Case crime No.133 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC is concerned, he has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 6.9.2021 order whereof at page 39 of the bail application.

¶22

Countering the said submission got the learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail while arguing that the applicant had manipulated records and even himself declared juvenile despite the fact that he was not a juvenile and thus proceedings have been sought to be lodged but he could not dispute the fact that in the criminal revision so instituted by the applicant himself, the order which have not been made basis for lodging of the FIR has been quashed and there are no further orders passed thereof. However, learned AGA could not dispute the fact that the criminal history has been properly explained and applicant is languishing in jail since 27.7.2021.

¶23

Sri Mahendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the complainant has adopted the argument of learned AGA. However, he has additionally argued that applicant has committed the offence, however he could not dispute the fact that the order on the basis whereof the FIR has been lodged has been quashed and the matter has been remitted back and he has made statement that no further orders have been passed in the matter in question after passing of the order dated 7.9.2020. He has further submitted that the applicant is not cooperating in the proceeding which is pending before the court below.

¶24

Considering the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the question of bail, this Court prima facie finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail, as the very basis for lodging of the FIR in question is the order dated 7.9.2020 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.26, Agra which has been set aside in Criminal Revision No. 566 of 2021, as the criminal history has been properly explained and applicant is languishing in jail since 27.7.2021, as also looking into the nature of acquisition, the evidence collected by the I.O, in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of the punishment in the case of conviction, complicity of accused and all attending circumstances.

¶25

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.

¶26

In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶27

Let the applicant- Prashant involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶28

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶29

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶30

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or

¶31

commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶32

(iv) 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶33

(v) Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶34

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶35

Any observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned Trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶36

Order Date :- 11.3.2022 piyush

¶37

Digitally signed by PIYUSH KUMAR Date: 2022.03.11 17:45:15 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prashant v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant 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

Shakil @ Khunti Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Singh @ David Vs State of U.P.

Umardaraj@ Kala Vs State of U.P.

Pushpa Vs State of U.P.

Ravikant Vs State of U.P.

Iliyas Ansari Vs State of U.P.