Dismissed

Praveen Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Aug 2023ABAIL/1708/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by Praveen Kumar Singh. The Court held that granting bail is not a fit case as the applicant is a proclaimed offender under Section 82 Cr.P.C., absconding, and not cooperating with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application rejected as applicant is a proclaimed offender and uncooperative with investigation.

Praveen Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:163299

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1708 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Srivastava,Priyanka Srivastava

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Praveen Kumar Singh seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 107 of 2021, under Sections 143, 147, 323, 307, 504, 506, 427, 332, 333, 353, 186, 188, 153, 269 IPC, 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and 3 Epidemic Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Azamgarh.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He has been falsely implicated in this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Applicant has no criminal history to his credit. It is further submitted that although process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued by the Court against the applicant, but from a perusal of the case diary, it appears that no proper procedure was followed by the Investigating Officer to procure the appearance of the applicant, hence to proceed under Section 82 Cr.P.C. by the concerned Magistrate was not justified in the eyes of law.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and it has been submitted that order under Section 82 Cr.P.C. had already been issued against the accused applicant before filing of application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court. NBW was issued against the applicant on 25.4.2022 and process under Section 82 CrPC was issued against him on 7.12.2022 and so when anticipatory bail application was filed before the Court concerned, the applicant was already a proclaimed offender. It is further

¶11

submitted that when despite all the efforts made by the police the applicant could not be traced, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued under the instructions of the court. It is further submitted that in respect of the same, a detailed description has been given in the case diary by the Investigating Officer.

¶12

In this matter, investigation is going on and the applicant is not cooperating with the Investigating Officer and this fact finds support from the instructions obtained by the learned A.G.A.

¶13

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 730 has held that "Normally, when the accused is "absconding" and declared as a "proclaimed offender", there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail."

¶14

Further, the judgment passed in Lavesh (supra) was referred by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 171 and referring to paragraph 12 of the judgment of Lavesh (supra), in paragraph 16 of the said judgment, it was observed, relevant portion of which is as under :

¶15

"16.........It is clear from the above decision that if anyone is declared as an absconder / proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail."

¶16

Hence, from the aforesaid case laws it is evident that as per normal rule, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to an accused who is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of the process of the Court and has been declared as proclaimed offender.

¶17

In view of that, I deem it not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. Such a person, who does not cooperate with the investigation at all, is not entitled to get any relief from this Court by way of anticipatory bail.

¶18

The anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, rejected .

¶19

However, it is observed that the bail application of the applicant, if moved, shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

¶20

Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 .

¶21

Order Date :- 11.8.2023 safi

¶22

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Praveen Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar Singh 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

Soveer Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Indal Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Sattar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Pundhir and Another Vs State of U.P.

Anurag Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Arif and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another