Dismissed

Atul Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC17 May 2024/991/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected the second anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant, accused in allegations of fraud against patients, failed to disclose a criminal history of five cases. Despite initial allegations of involvement with his hospital, the court found the severity of the offence and the applicant's lack of clean hand precluded bail.

What the court decided

AI extract

Atul Prajapati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38037

¶2

Court No. - 33

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 991 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Atul Prajapati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yogendra Pal Anand,Krishna Kumar,Prabhat Dwivedi

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶7

1-Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing from Allahabad and perused the record.

¶8

2-The instant Criminal Misc. Second Anticipatory Bail Application under section 438 Cr.P.C., after rejecting the second anticipatory bail application of the applicant by the trial court vide order dated 25.04.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Lucknow, applicant seeks anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 344 of 2022, Case No. 4839 of 2023 (State vs. Dhruva Pandey & Others) , under Sections 311, 406, 420, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow pending in the Court of A.C.J.M-IInd, Lucknow.

¶9

3-As per the prosecution case in brief, a first information report dated 07.06.2022 was lodged by the Dr. Rajan Bhatnagar, Chief Medical Superintendent of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, Ayurvigyan Sansthan, Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow against Monu, Sumit and employees of 108 Ambulance stating inter-alia that some unknown persons, apart from named accused persons, by conspiring together in a group and saying that there is no proper treatment in Lohia Hospital and the patient and his family members are tricked and

¶10

taken away from near gate of the Hospital and by deceiving them and taking them to admitted in the private hospitals, as such, they do work of fraud by getting lump sum money from the patient and their family members. During investigation, four persons namely Dhruv Pandey, Sumit Kumar, Pawan and Priyanshu were apprehended by the police on 07.06.2022 and on interrogation, they have disclosed that they, in collusion with each other, used to bring the patients from the gate of Lohia Hospital by enticing them away to Arpan Hospital and Sun Hospital and in lieu thereof, they used to get illegal money. During investigation, the investigating ofÏcer has also recorded the statement of the victim Ajay Pratap Singh and Babu Lal Verma and they have also supported the prosecution case. After culmination of investigation, charge-sheet dated 18.10.2022 has been submitted, on which the concerned court below took cognizance on 19.01.2023.

¶11

4-The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is owner of Arpan Hospital and he is not named in the F.I.R. Both the victims, namely, Ajay Pratap Singh and Babu Lal Verma with ulterior motive have taken the name of Arpan Hospital. So far as the statement of Pawan Kumar, Dhruv Pandey, Priyanshu and Sumit is concerned, they have taken the name of the hospital of the applicant under the pressure of police. During investigation, applicant was granted anticipatory bail till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. It is next argued that the investigation, conducted in this case, is not fair. In this case, charge-sheet has been filed on fictitious and fabricated facts, in which there is several contradiction. It is also submitted that offence under Section 311 IPC is not made out since unauthorized recovery was being sought by the police. It is next submitted that when the applicant refused to fulfill

¶12

their illegal demand, then applicant has been implicated in this case. Lastly it is submitted that the applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest.

¶13

5-Learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the applicant by contending that the applicant has criminal history of five cases whereas the same has not been disclosed in the anticipatory bail application, as such, applicant has not come with clean hand before this Court. In the light of statement of the prosecution witnesses recorded during investigation, complicity of the applicant surfaced and on the basis of material evidence against the applicant, charge-sheet has been filed against him. He also submits that as per material evidence collected during investigation, applicant used to extract illegal money from the patients. Applicant has criminal history of five cases. Since cognizable offence is made out against the applicant and offence is serious in nature, therefore, after submission of charge-sheet applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶14

6-Object of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains. It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this court can-not be put in a straitjacket formula, but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from

¶15

Justice , apprehension of tampering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation or society, etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society.

¶16

7-Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that Pawan Kumar Prajapati, Dhruv Pandey, Priyanshu and Sumit have taken the name of Arpan hospital of the applicant and also disclosed the modus-operandi adopted by them in collusion with each other with regard to allegations levelled in the matter. Applicant after submission of the charge-sheet, has preferred an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being Application No. 2943 of 2024 for quashing of the charge-sheet filed under Sections 311, 406, 420, 120-B I.P.C. which has been dismissed vide order dated 29.03.2024 observing that it would be open for the Court to frame appropriate charge and the applicant can raise his pleas at that stage regarding which charge has been made out from the allegations levelled against the applicant. I also find that complete order sheet of the trial court has not been filed by the applicant. On the charge-sheet dated 18.10.2022, the concerned court below took cognizance on 19.01.2023 and summoned the applicant but he did not appeared before the trial Court and preferred this application after more than one year. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C.K. and another , 2022 Live law (SC) 870 has also held while considering anticipatory bail, the nature of offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. It is also held that even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. This Court is of the view that alleged offence is

¶17

serious in nature. The act and conduct of the accused is an offence against the society at large.

¶18

8-In view of the above, I do not find any good ground to exercise my discretionary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the applicant.

¶19

9-The application lacks merit, and is accordingly, rejected .

¶20

10-It is clarified that anything said in this order at this stage is limited to the purpose of determination of this anticipatory bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶21

Order Date :- 17.5.2024

¶22

saurabh

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Atul Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Atul Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nazeer Khan @ Mohd. Nazeer and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Divya Sagar Alias Rinki vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Ajay @ Lallu vs State of Up

Dinesh Kumar Yadav @ Dinesh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Atul Prajapati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Deepak Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy. Home Lko. and Another