Allowed

Monu @ Munendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home and Another

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2024ABAIL/726/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Allahabad granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a case involving alleged offences under IPC and the SC/ST Act. The court held that since the FIR appeared to be a private/dispute matter where the ingredients of the SC/ST Act were not prima facie made out, Section 18's bar was not applicable.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail to the applicant on a personal bond with two sureties subject to standard conditions including appearance and non-interference with witnesses.

Monu @ Munendra vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home and… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:27628

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 726 of 2024 Applicant :- Monu @ Munendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶5

Vakalatnama filed today by Shri Himanshu Shukla, learned counsel on behalf of the opposite party no.2/complainant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Shri Vivek Chandra, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Himanshu Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/complainant.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No. 357 of 2019, under Sections 406,323,504,506 IPC & Sections 3(1) Da, Dha of the SC/ST Act relating to police station Ramkot, District Sitapur.

¶8

At the outset, a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned AGA as well as the learned counsel for the complainant stating that the instant case by virtue of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, 1989 is not maintainable.

¶9

Considering the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India and others, AIROnline 2020 SC 225 and it is urged that where prima facie an offence under the SC/ST Act is not made out, then the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act may not be taken as a bar jurisdiction of the Court in exercise of powers under Section 438 CrPC.

¶10

Elaborating the submissions, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that from bare perusal of the FIR in question, it would indicate that it is apparently a private dispute. However, in order to make the offence graver, certain sections of the SC/ST have been added. It is further submitted that from perusal of the statement of the wife of the complainant as well as the other family members including certain independent witnesses which have also been brought on record, it would

¶11

indicate that there is nothing to indicate that the ingredients for attracting Sections 3(1)Da, Dha of the SC/ST Act had any role to play. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, it is stated that the bar of Section 18 does not bar in the instant case.

¶12

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that from bare reading of the FIR in question, it would indicate that there is a clear dispute between the parties regarding the sale of land. As per the averments made in the FIR, it is alleged that the complainant was the recorded owner of the plot no. 311/3 measuring 1.449 hectare situate in Village Khagesiyamau, District- Sitapur. It is further alleged that the complainant was persuaded to sell the land by carving and make certain plots in favour of respective buyers. This was done at the behest of the applicant's father and the amount which was received from the said sale, was deposited in the account of the complainant. The applicant's father persuaded the complainant to transfer some amount in his account. The applicant's father is alleged to have sold the land of the complainant and even the amount which was received from the sale has got transferred in his account and he neither returned the money nor got the land purchased.

¶13

It is further submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is urged that insofar as the allegations in the FIR are concerned, this clearly indicates that there is a civil dispute between the parties.

¶14

The learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court to Annexure-4 wherein the statement of the wife of the complainant also reiterates the contents of the F.I.R. and the version contained therein was improved by incorporating the name of the applicant and 5 other unknown persons. It is urged that the name of the applicant does not find place in the FIR. However, as per the statement of three independent witnesses viz., Mahaveer, Lalta and Jagannath, it is clear that none of them were present at the spot. It is in this view, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that since no offence would be made out especially when the bar in terms of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act does not come in the way. Hence, the instant anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant is maintainable in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan (supra).

¶15

Learned AGA as well as the learned counsel for the complainant while opposing the aforesaid the prayer for anticipatory bail could not dispute the fact that from bare reading of the FIR, it appears a civil dispute between the parties. Even the allegations of the SC/ST Act prima facie could not be established as it could not be clarified that it was in full

¶16

public view rather the allegation in the FIR is that it was in the house of the complainant.

¶17

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances including the nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the applicant including that he has no criminal history and no apprehension has been expressed that the applicant is at flight risk, hence, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant can be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶18

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Monu @ Munendra involved in the aforesaid FIR/Case Crime Number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court Concerned, with the conditions:-

¶19

(a) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required;

¶20

(b) that 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶21

¶22

(d) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶23

(e) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶25

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶26

Order Date :- 4.4.2024 Shravan

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Monu @ Munendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monu @ Munendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home 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

Mohd. Irfan @ Kaju Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Vijay Pal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt Lko.

Nurooddin and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Safat Ali and Ors. vs Hazi Jalees Ahmad

Salman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Othes

Rahul Jessel Mittra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Govt. of U.P. Lucknow