Dismissed

Babbunna Alias Sameer v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2024ABAIL/6623/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a second anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court held that the applicant misused a prior interim protection order by nonappearance during trial for four years and found the arguments pertaining to regular bail, not appropriating for anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application rejected on grounds of misuse of court process and lack of cooperation in trial.

Babbunna Alias Sameer vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:113955

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6623 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Babbunna Alias Sameer Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant as well as Sri J.K. Chaurasia, learned A.G.A. for State and also perused the material available on record.

¶7

The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for protection in regard to FIR/Case Crime No. 645 of 2019, under Sections 376, 452, 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Khorabar, District- Gorakhpur.

¶8

This is the second anticipatory bail application. The first one was rejected by this Court vide order dated 27.2.2024 for want of prosecution, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 54090 of 2019.

¶9

PROSECUTION STORY:

¶10

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have entered into corporeal relationship with the informant on the pretext of marrying her and had subsequently refused to marry her. The victim is stated to have earlier on instituted an FIR against the applicant but the matter was compromised and the victim is stated to have got herself married and gone to the house of her in-laws. On 22.8.2019 at 3.00 pm, when she had come to her maternal home, the applicant alongwith two other co-accused persons is stated to have come to her house and hurled abuses at her and beaten her up and also outraged her modesty.

¶11

RIVAL CONTENTIONS:

¶12

(Arguments on behalf of applicant)

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant

¶14

has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is stated that the FIR is delayed by one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence.

¶15

It is further stated that the victim is used to filing false and frivolous FIRs against the accused persons and subsequently, gets the matter compromised. It is stated that the victim is a married lady. She had also earlier on filed an FIR against the applicant and the matter was compromised.

¶16

The applicant was granted interim protection by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.12.2019 passed in CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 54090 of 2019, as such, he had not misused the said opportunity granted but the earlier counsel could not appear before this Court on several occasions, as such, it was dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶17

Learned counsel has next stated that the fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. The applicant is a bonafide person. Learned counsel has submitted that subsequent to the passing of the initial order dated 13.12.2019, the final report (charge sheet) has been submitted against the applicant on 8.2.2020, as such, as a new ground, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

¶18

Learned counsel has placed reliance on the Case Crime No. 95 of 2015 instituted by the same informant against the other accused persons u/s 376, 504, 506 IPC, at P.S. Rajghat, District Gorakhpur.

¶19

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶20

(Arguments on behalf of opposite party/State)

¶21

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that another Case Crime No. 1017 of 2018 was instituted against the applicant u/s 376 and 506 IPC and the applicant has not filed any bail order or acquittal order

¶22

in the said case crime number, as such, the criminal history has not been explained.

¶23

It is further argued that the applicant has misused the opportunity granted earlier on and he is not co-operating in trial and coercive measures have been taken against him.

¶24

CONCLUSION:

¶25

In Kartarey and others Vs. The State of U.P. (1976) 1 SCC 172 , the Supreme Court has opined that to be an 'absconder' in the eye of law, it is not necessary that a person should have run away from his home, it is sufficient if he hides himself to evade the process of law, even if the hiding place be his own home.

¶26

This is the second anticipatory bail application. It is clearly a misuse of the process of Court, as earlier on also, the applicant was granted interim protection by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.12.2019 and he has misused it for a period of four years.

¶27

Considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also the fact that the applicant has not appeared during trial even once since the year 2019, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, as the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant pertains to regular bail application and cannot be agitated u/s 438 Cr.P.C. at this stage.

¶28

In view of the above, the present anticipatory bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

¶29

Order Date :- 18.7.2024 Shalini

¶30

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶31

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Babbunna Alias Sameer v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babbunna Alias Sameer v. State of 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sandip Alias Rahul vs State of U.P. and Another

Annu Arora vs State of Up and Another

Sajid Alias Mainuddin Abbasi vs State of Up and Another

Omveer Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Shakil vs State of Up

Nafees Ahmad vs State of Up and 2 Others