Shiv Shankar Pal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:182420

Court No. - 71

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9991 of 2023

Applicant :- Shiv Shankar Pal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.126 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 332, 352, 353, 336, 395, 435, 452, 427, 186, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, P.S.- Anpara, District- Sonebhadra.

¶8

As per prosecution story, on 09.11.2018 at 3.45 pm, when contract workers of the HINDALCO Industries Limited, Renusagar Power Division Renusagar, Sonebhadra were protesting at the gate of Renusagar Power Division premises, the administration took action to remove about 100-150 persons from there. Some people left from there and some people were arrested. Subsequently, on the same day at 5.30 pm, 300 to 500 people gathered and vandalized the factory and hostel and set fire to the motorcycles parked in the factory and when the police retaliated against this, they also pelted stones at the police due to which the police personnel were injured. The miscreants entered the factory premises and damaged the factory property and vehicles parked there and looted the belongings of the hostel dwellers. 54 people were identified among these miscreants.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive, the applicants have no concerned with the alleged incident. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are labours working at HINDALCO Industries Limited, Renusagar Power Division

¶10

Renusagar, Sonebhadra. There was some industrial dispute between the parties. He submitted that a compromise/agreement has been commenced between the labours and the aforesaid company in the presence of Conciliation Officer (ALC,Pipari) but the aforesaid company has not been complied the contract dated 11.10.2017, thereafter, applicants has been filed a letter/objection before the aforesaid company and the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Mirzapur Range Pipari, Sonebhadra subsequently again a meeting was organized and agreement /compromise has been commenced between the labours (Applicants) and company on 30.12.2017 in the presence of Conciliation Officer (ALC, Pipari) and agreed upon to took action for redressing the entire problem of the labours.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Mirzapur Range Pipari, Sonebhadra taking action in response to the letter of dispute dated 29-10-18 communicated to both parties i.e. labours and HINDALCO Industries Limited Renusagar Power Division in dispute for concillation as per Section 4 (f) of "The Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 4 of "The Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 and issued notice on 2-11-2018 and directed both the parties to attend proceeding related to dispute on 5-11-2018. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that despite notice issued by Deputy Labour Commissioner, Mirzapur Range Pipari, Sonebhadra, HINDALCO Industries never appeared before the Commission. The first FIR was lodged by the HINDALCO Industries Limited against the labours/union leaders including the applicants bearing Case Crime No.125 of 2018 which was challenged before this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.33640 of 2018 (Kuldip Pal and 4 others Vs. State of U.P.) and this Court, vide order dated 26.11.2018 has stayed the arrest of the applicants. The second FIR was lodged by the HINDALCO Industries Limited against the applicants and other co-accsued bearing Case Crime No.126 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 332, 352, 353, 336, 395, 435, 452, 427, 186, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, which was challenged before this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.37483 of 2018 (Rajnath Sharma and 9 others Vs. State of U.P. and others) and this Court, vide order dated 21.12.2018 has stayed the arrest of the applicants till

¶12

submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.. The third FIR was lodged by the S.H.O. Anpara against the co-accused bearing Case Crime No.127 of 2018 , under Sections 147, 148, 307, 332, 353, 34 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1984 which was challenged before this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.1845 of 2019 (Ramdev Prajapati and 20 others Vs. State of U.P. and others) and this Court, vide order dated 10.01.2019 has stayed the arrest till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that applicants have apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicants are released on anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants.

¶14

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicants, they are directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶15

In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants- Shiv Shankar Pal and Hira Lal , involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

(1) The applicants shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.

¶17

(2) The applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶18

(3) The applicants shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶19

(4) The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶20

(5) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicants.

¶21

(6) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶22

(7) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of their bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶23

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶24

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands allowed .

¶25

Order Date :- 20.9.2023 Krishna*

¶26

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shiv Shankar Pal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Shankar Pal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vipendra @ Babu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Renuka Lily Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mukhaya Arakshi 308 Ompal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satpal and Another Vs State of U.P.