Harshmani Singh @ Munna v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civils Ecrt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2024ABAIL/377/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application in a case under multiple IPC sections including 307 and 308. The complainant raised a preliminary objection on maintainability based on a Division Bench ruling and the U.P. amendment to Section 438 Cr.P.C.; the court found no prima facie substance but adjourned for further arguments, granting interim anticipatory bail on bonds.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection: applicant to be released on anticipatory bail on arrest, on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two like sureties, with conditions, till next date.

Harshmani Singh @ Munna vs State of U.P Thru. Prin… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 377 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Harshmani Singh @ Munna Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civils Ecrt. Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Pratap Singh,Atul Kumar Yadav

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶7

Learned AGA informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including upto date case diary.

¶8

Preliminary objection along with power/ Vakalatnama has been filed by Shri Gyanendra Singh on behalf of opposite party no.2/ complainant and the same is taken on record.

¶9

Heard Shri Shailendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2/ complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

The present anticipatory bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Harshmani Singh @ Munna in Case Crime No. 191/2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 504, 506, 427, 307, 308 IPC, Police Station Baghrai, District Pratapgarh, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.

¶11

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that it is case of false implication. No specific role of assault has been assigned tot he applicant and even if the case of the prosecution is taken on its face, only general allegations have been levelled and barring the informant Maheep Narain Singh all other injured persons (two persons) have sustained minor injuries which are simple in nature.

¶12

It is further submitted that the investigation of the case is pending, however, identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Devendra Bahadur Singh Rajendra Bahadur Singh @ Rajendra Kumar Singh and Karan Singh @ Abhay Pratap Singh have been granted regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and the copies of these bail orders have been placed at pages no. 71 to 76 of the paper book.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not having any criminal history and even if the case of prosecution is taken on its face no case will emerge so far as Section 307 IPC is concerned.

¶14

Learned AGA, however, opposes the anticipatory bail of the applicant.

¶15

Shri Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel for the complainant/ opposite party no.2 has raised very interesting question while relying on the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Babu Singh & others Vs. Raj Bahadur Singh and others reported in (2022)11 ILRA 627 emphasizing paragraphs no. 40 to 43 of the same as well as the Section 438 Cr.P.C. in order canvass the argument that when an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the District Court/ Sessions Judge another application may not be entertained/ maintainable before this Court. In this regard the explanation which have occurred in 438(2) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) has been highlighted in order to show that this explanation contains a reference of the final order made on an application moved under Sub Section (1) of Section 438 Cr.P.C. pertaining to the fact that the same shall not be construed as an interlocutory order for the purpose of this Court.

¶16

It is submitted that when the order passed by the district court it may not be treated as an interlocutory order and only revision of the said order of the Sessions Judge or the trial court shall be maintainable.

¶17

Prima facie I do not find any substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the complainant/ oppose party no.2. The explanation attached with sub section (2) of Section 438 Cr.P.C. has referred to the Code of Criminal Procedure and any law which has been propounded with regard to the Civil Procedure Code, prima facie may not be applicable to the Code of Criminal Procedure having regard to the diversity of the language used under Section 115 CPC vis-a-vis Section 397 to 401 of the Cr.P.C. However, in the considered opinion of this Court a reasonable time is required to be given to learned counsel for the complainant/ opposite party no.2 to address this Court on the issue which has been raised by him.

¶18

List this case on 7.3.2024 in the first ten cases of the cause list, by which date State, if so wish as well as the complainant may file counter affidavit/ objections, taking into account the issue which has been raised today by learned counsel for the complainant/ opposite party no.2.

¶19

It is provided that till the next date of listing i.e. 7.3.2024 in the event of the arrest of the applicant- Harshmani Singh @ Munna involved in the above noted case, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail, on his furnishing personal bonds of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/ Investigating Officer/ Arresting Officer with the following conditions;

¶20

(1) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation or for discovery of any fact by a police officer as and when required;

¶21

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

¶22

(3) The applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Court.

¶23

Order Date :- 26.2.2024 Muk

¶24

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Harshmani Singh @ Munna v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civils Ecrt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harshmani Singh @ Munna v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civils Ecrt. Lko. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deepak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rajwati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Santosh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Vipin Kanhaiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Tara Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Snehlata Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.