Dismissed

Chandra Mauli Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Mar 2024ABAIL/455/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court analyzed a third anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant in a case involving sinister threats and criminal history. After considering rival submissions and the nature of allegations, the court rejected the application, directing the applicant to seek regular bail if needed, while noting express reservations about entertaining anticipatory bail furt

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail rejected; applicant directed to take recourse to regular bail.

Chandra Mauli Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:32828

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 455 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Chandra Mauli Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Lakhan Vishwakarma

¶7

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

This is the third anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant who has been arraigned in Case Crime No.355 of 2020, under Sections 376-D and 506 IPC, relating to police station Motigarpur, District Sultanpur.

¶10

At the outset, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the first anticipatory bail application was moved bearing no.4460 of 2021 wherein the applicant alongwith the other co-accused was granted interim protection, however, later by means of order dated 20.09.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.4460 of 2021 which was dismissed on the ground of the maintainability as the applicant at that point of time had approached this Court straightway without exhausting his remedy of filing the anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court.

¶11

It is also submitted that later the applicant filed the second anticipatory bail application bearing no.578 of 2022 which came to be dismissed on merits on 12.09.2022. It is urged that in the meantime, the investigation was going on and thereafter the charge-sheet was filed. One of the other co-accused, namely, Din Mani Mishra has applied for regular bail which has been allowed by

¶12

a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by means of order dated 17.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.11364 of 2023.

¶13

It is also pointed out that it is in the aforesaid backdrop that where the charge-sheet has been filed and the Court has taken cognizance on 20.06.2021 thereafter the applicant alongwith the other co-accused have preferred the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing no.1503 of 2024 which came to be dismissed as not pressed.

¶14

It is urged that in the aforesaid backdrop, once the chargesheet has been filed and the applicant was not required for any custodian interrogation rather he has supported the investigation. At this stage, this application for filing application for anticipatory bail can be considered on its own merit and the earlier order may not come in the way as there are change circumstances as the chargesheet has been filed and the Court has taken cognizance. He has also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.6057 of 2021 decided on 16.11.2021. It has been submitted that merely because the earlier application for anticipatory bail came to be dismissed will not prevent the Court from examining the matter afresh and in such circumstances the application is maintainable.

¶15

On the merits, it has been urged that there was a civil dispute between the parties which was also converted into a compromise, however, since the complainant did not ignore to the same and in order to pressurize the applicant. The false allegations have been levelled by lodging the FIR. It is submitted that there is bald averments made by the complainant which apart from her own statement is not corroborated and in such circumstances, the applicant does not have any other criminal history except for the instant case and another case which was lodged thereafter by the mother of the complainant hence it is a case where there is vendeta at the behest of the complainant. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is stated that the applicant be granted the benefit of

¶16

the anticipatory bail.

¶17

Learned AGA as well as Shri Ram Lakhan Vishwakarma learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the aforesaid third anticipatory bail application and it is urged that in so far as the averments made on merit is concerned, there is ample evidence indicating that the applicant and his two other brothers who are accused to outrage the modesty of the complainant under the threat of a fire arm. The statement of the complainant is intact in terms of Section 164 Cr.P.C. and after due investigation the chargesheet has been filed and the matter is ripe for trial as the cognizance has been taken by the Court on 26.07.2021.

¶18

It is also pointed out that this is repeated attempt of the applicant to seek some indulgence from the Court; inasmuch as on two earlier occasions, the applicant had filed anticipatory bail where he was not successful. After the filing of the chargesheet, the applicant had also attempted to get the same quashed by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., however, that too failed. Now at this stage instead of seeking regular bail, the applicant has filed the instant application which may not be entertained.

¶19

Having considered the rival submissions and from the perusal of the material on record, apparently the allegations made in the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence. During investigation, the chargesheet has been filed and the Court has taken cognizance which apparently indicates that the matter requires to go to trial. The attempt of the applicant to get the chargesheet quashed has failed. The other coaccused though have been enlarged on regular bail does not necessarily mean that the applicant would be entitled to grant of anticipatory bail solely on the said ground.

¶20

From the perusal of the contents of the FIR as well as the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., there is clear averments made against the present applicant that he had outraged the modesty of the victim under the threat of fire arm.

¶21

In the aforesaid circumstances, even though the application may be maintainable but this Court is not inclined to entertain the same.

¶22

Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected leaving it open for the applicant to take recourse to regular bail and in case such an application is moved, the same shall be considered on its own merits keeping in view the decision of the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC Online SC 825.

¶23

Order Date :- 26.4.2024 ank

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chandra Mauli Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Mauli Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Abdul Kayyoom and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, District-Gonda Now Balrampur and 3 Others

Ram Lakhan Vs Ram Naresh and 2 Others

Smt. Pushpa Gupta Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Ayodhya and 7 Others

Smt.Karamraji Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and Others

Shiv Shankar and Others Vs Consolidation Officer, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow and Another

State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Pubilc Works Deptt. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.and 2 Others Vs M/S Dsc Ltd. New Delhi Thru. Its Director Sri Harminder Singh and Another