Dismissed

Gopal Kumar Singh @ Gopal Singh v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2024ABAIL/563/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application as not maintainable because the applicant is declared an absconder and a Section 82 CrPC process is issued. The court directed a time-bound disposal of regular bail if the applicant surrenders within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed; applicant directed to appear within two weeks for disposition of regular bail.

Gopal Kumar Singh @ Gopal Singh vs State of U.P Thru… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:23608

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 563 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Gopal Kumar Singh @ Gopal Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jyoti Rajpoot,Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jaibind Singh Rathour,Jaybind

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Shri J.B.S. Rathaur, Advocate has put in appearance and filed his vakalatname/power on behalf of the informant/complainant, the same is taken on record.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is also taken on record.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. states that the complete instructions in this case have bee procured.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, as well as Mr. J.B.S. Rathaur, learned counsel for the informant/complainant.

¶10

This application has been moved by the applicant- Gopal Kumar Singh alias Gopal Singh for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.0287 of 2020, under sections 120-B IPC read with sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC lodged at police station para, district Lucknow.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant/informant states jointly that in the present case proceeding under section 82 CrPC has been initiated against the applicant and since the applicant has already been declared as an absconder, this application, moved by the applicant under section 438 CrPC is not maintainable. In this regard reliance has been placed on the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 14.03.2024 in Criminal Appeal No.Nil of 2024, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Cri) No.7940 of 2023 (Srikant Upadhyay and others vs. State of Bihar and another).

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant, on the other hand, submits that it is case of no evidence so far as the applicant is concerned and the applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation and the plea of anticipatory bail may not be negated only on the ground that custodial

¶13

interrogation of the applicant is required. Reliance has bee placed on the order dated 01.03.2023 passed by the Hon'bel Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. Nil of 2024, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Cri) No.9949 of 2023.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it would reveal that the process under section 82 CrPC has already been issued against the applicant. It is also reflected that it was on 19.08.2023 on which date the anticipatory bail application of the applicant was rejected by the trial court. There is nothing on record which may explain the delay of 7 months occurred since the rejection of the anticipatory bail application of the applicant by the trial court. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Srikant Upadhyay and others vs. State of Bihar and another 's case (supra) would reveal that, while relying on the law laid down in (2022) 14 SCC 516 (Prem Shankar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and Anr), (2014) 2 SCC 171 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma) and (2012) 8 SCC 730 (Lavesh Vs. State of (NCT of Delhi) , it has been opined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that since an accused, who is not cooperating in the investigation and against him non-bailable warrants of arrest and process under section82-83 CrPC have been issued, may not be protected under section 438 CrPC.

¶15

As mentioned herein before, no grounds have been stated in the application nor has been canvassed before this court which may justify moving of the instant anticipatory bail application of the applicant only on 13.03.2024 after delay of 7 months after rejection of anticipatory bail of applicant by the trial court and also having regard to the fact that the process of non-bailable warrants of arrest and proceedings under section 82 CrPC have already been issued against the applicant and the same have not been challenged at an appropriate forum, the anticipatory bail application, moved on behalf of the applicant, appears to be not maintainable and is dismissed as such.

¶16

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation and is intending to appear before the trial court for the purpose of getting regular bail and in this regard suitable directions be given to the trial court. This court is of the considered view that if an under trial or to say even a convict is intending to appear before the trial court for the purpose of getting regular bail under section 437/439 CrPC, as the case may be, the court shall be under an obligation to decide his regular bail application with utmost expedition. The said principle has been enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017 and In Re: To issue certain Guidelines Regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in Criminal Trials v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others , MANU/SC/0292/2021 wherein a time-frame has been provided for disposal of the bail application moved before the trial court as well as

¶17

before this court.

¶18

Thus, having regard to the request made by the learned counsel for the applicant, it is provided that if the applicant appears/surrenders before the trial court within two weeks from today and moves an appropriate application for regular bail under section 437/439, as the case may be, the trial court shall dispose of the same, strictly in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties, with utmost expedition.

¶19

Order Date :- 18.3.2024

¶20

MVS/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gopal Kumar Singh @ Gopal Singh v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Kumar Singh @ Gopal Singh v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Rakesh Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Anil Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Shahid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Jai Prakash Pandey @ Bindu Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Gopal Kumar Singh @ Gopal Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. and Another

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