Disposed

Bheem Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2024ABAIL/6589/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police personnel sought anticipatory bail in a robbery FIR alleging the police team robbed the complainant after falsely arresting him for explosives. Declared absconder under Section 82 CrPC, he was held ineligible; application disposed of with liberty to surrender and apply for regular bail per Satender Kumar Antil.

What the court decided

AI extract

Bheem Singh vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:151118

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6589 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Bheem Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anup Dhar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Bheem Singh seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 59 of 2000 (Criminal Case No. 2351 of 2005), under Sections 342, 395, 218, 323, 166, 193 IPC, Police Station G.R.P. Anandnagar, District Maharajganj.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that on the basis of suspicion of keeping some explosive substance the informant was arrested by the police team. It is further submitted that prima facie the police party found it to be an explosive substance but however after analysis it was found not to be an explosive substance but in discharge of his official duty the aforesaid act was done by the present applicant. Applicant is a police personnel and he is still in service. No malafide act was done by the present applicant. It is also submitted that no recovery of money or any incriminating article has been made by the police during investigation. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. Process under Section 82 CrPC has been issued against the applicant and he has been declared absconder. Applicant had been cooperative during investigation. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that since process under Section 82 CrPC has been issued against the applicant and he has been declared absconder,

¶10

he is not entitled for any relief from this Court.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

One Awadhraj Prasad was falsely alleged to having explosive substance with him in a train. The police party arrested him and sent to jail but subsequently it was found that the recovered material was not an explosive substance. F.I.R. was lodged by the aggrieved person Awadhraj Prasad alleging therein that a robbery of Rs. 89,000/- alongwith some other articles was committed against him by the police team and the present applicant was also alleged to be a member of the aforesaid police team. After investigation charge sheet was submitted in the year 2004. As per the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant, applicant is a proclaimed offender and he is not cooperating with the trial court.

¶13

The conduct of the applicant falls within the ambit of the law promulgated by Hon'ble Apex Court in Prem Shankar Prasad Versus State of Bihar and Another, 2021 SCC OnLine Supreme Court 955 . In the facts of the case, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 406, 420 IPC against the accused and thus it was explicit that a prima facie case against the accused was found. From the record, it reveals that the arrest warrant was issued by the Magistrate against the accused and thereafter proceedings under Sections 82, 83 Cr.P.C. had been initiated pursuant to the order passed by the Magistrate. Only thereafter the accused moved an application before the trial court for anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the Sessions Court. However, subsequently anticipatory bail was granted to the aforesaid accused by the High Court and when the matter came before the Hon'ble Apex Court, it was observed like this.

¶14

"19. Despite the above observations on merits and despite the fact that it was brought to the notice of the High Court that respondent No. 2 - accused is absconding and even the proceedings under sections 82-83 of Cr. P.C. have been initiated as far as back on 10.01.2019, the High Court has just ignored the aforesaid relevant aspects and has granted anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2 - accused by observing that the nature of accusation is arising out of a business transaction. The specific allegations of cheating, etc., which came to be considered by learned Additional Sessions Judge has not at all been considered by the High Court. Even the High Court has just ignored the factum of initiation of proceedings under sections 82-83 of Cr. P.C. by simply observing that "be that

¶15

as it may". The aforesaid relevant aspect on grant of anticipatory bail ought not to have been ignored by the High Court and ought to have been considered by the High Court very seriously and not casually.

¶16

In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma (Supra), it is observed and held by this court that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of section 82 of Cr. P.C., he is not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail."

¶17

The present applicant, against whom non-bailable warrant and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued and who has been proclaimed as absconder, is not entitled for the benefit of the anticipatory bail in the light of the law laid down in Prem Shankar Prasad case (supra).

¶18

Moreover, the present anticipatory bail application is not maintainable in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Dharamraj, 2023 SCC Online SC 1085 , decided on 29.8.2023.

¶19

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I deem it not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. Such persons, who do not cooperate with the investigation / trial at all, are not entitled for any relief from this Court by way of granting anticipatory bail. The prayer made in the application is refused.

¶20

In the last, learned counsel for the applicant has urged that direction for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicant be given in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 .

¶21

Hence, it is observed that in case the applicant surrenders before the Court concerned and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil case (supra).

¶22

With the aforesaid observations, the anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.

¶23

Order Date :- 17.9.2024 safi

¶24

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bheem Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Bheem Singh v. State of U.P. 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

Prashant Prakash Singh Alias Rahul Singh vs State of Up and Another

Vijay Singh vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Akash vs State of U.P. & 2 Others

Sarojani Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Surendra Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Shashank Sharma vs Shikha Sharma