This is the preliminary order in a bail application where the Court addressed the roster rotation issue. Relying on earlier orders, the Court directed that the application be listed before another Judge despite the office note that one previous application had been decided by the same judge.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1753 of 2024
Applicant :- Ravi Pratap @ Ravi Prakash Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow
Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Pandey,Abhishek,Sharad Tiwari,Utkarsh Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vivek Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vishwa Nath Nishad, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. On the first date of admission dated 16.02.2024, this Court has passed the following order:-
"1. Heard Sri Vivek Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vinay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ram Raj Singh, learned AGA for the State.
2. This is a first bail application of the applicant.
3. I am not sitting in the roster dealing with the bail application. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that I have not decided any bail application in the same crime case. Learned counsel has pressed urgency in the matter, therefore, list in the next week, in the list of fresh cases, before the appropriate Court."
3. This case has again been listed before me with the office reports dated 20.02.2024 and 21.02.2024, which read as under:-
" 20.02.2024: Office Report:
In compliance of Hon'ble Court's order dated 16.02.2024, it is being submitted that as per CIS status (copy enclosed), various bail applications arising out of present case crime number have been found.
It is further added that some of the Bail Applications have been decided by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. (senior most available Hon'ble Judge deciding any of the bail application).
Therefore, in the light of Point No.5 of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice order dated 31.01.2024 (copy enclosed), present bail application is also put up before the same Hon'ble Court.
Submitted for kind perusal.
Sd/
20.02.2024
21.02.2024: Office Report:
In continuation of office report dated 20.02.2024, it is added that as per CIS database one bail application (ABAIL No.1787 of 2022) is decided by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. (senior most Hon'ble Judge among the Hon'ble Judges deciding any of the bail application arising out of present case crime number).
Therefore, as per Point No.5 of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice order dated 31.01.2024, present bail is put up before this Hon'ble Court.
Sd/
21.02.2024"
4. Along with the aforesaid reports, the photocopy of the Administrative order dated 31.01.2024 being passed by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice has been enclosed showing Point No.5 thereof, to say that in terms of the aforesaid Point No.5 this Anticipatory Bail has been listed before me. Point No.5 of the order dated 31.01.2024 reads as under:-
"5. If any of such cases have been decided by different Hon'ble Judges, then newly instituted cases shall be listed before the Senior most available Hon'ble Judge who has decided any of the case arising out of same case crime number/FIR. If Hon'ble Judge is sitting in Division Bench then cases shall be listed manually before the same Bench."
5. In the office report dated 21.02.2024, the reference of A-Bail Application No.1787 of 2022; Chandra Prakash vs. State of U.P.; has been given to say that the said Bail Application has been decided by me. The order dated 21.10.2022 passed in A- Bail Application No.1787 of 2022; Chandra Prakash vs. State of U.P.; reads as under:-
"Heard Sri Vivek Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Angrez Nath Shukla, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of the informant by filing vakalatnama, the same is taken on record.
As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.0236 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 316 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Gonda. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the F.I.R.
Attention of this Court has been drawn towards the first information report which has been lodged on 27.06.2022 for the alleged incident in question dated 31.05.2022. However, prior to lodging of this impugned
first information report on 27.06.2022, the first information report of the present applicant was lodged on 03.06.2022 against the complainant of the impugned first information report. The impugned first information report is an outcome of counter blast.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that injury report so considered by the learned Session Judge is not correct, as such, the medical examination was conducted on 09.06.2022 after about ten days of the incident in question and on protest being made from the side of the present applicant, the medical board has examined the victim and found that allegations so levelled against the present applicant are not verifiable.
He has further submitted that during the entire investigation, the present applicant has cooperated as he never flouted the process of the law. Now the charge sheet has been filed. The applicant is giving undertaking that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings in the same manner as he has cooperated in the investigation. Therefore, the liberty of the present applicant may be protected.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant have submitted that the applicant has caused serious injury to a lady, resultant thereof, her pregnancy has been aborted. Such lady has also sustained some injuries which have been considered by the learned Session Court while rejecting the anticipatory bail of the applicant. Therefore, the present anticipatory bail application may be rejected.
Be that as it may, since the present applicant has not been arrested during investigation and has cooperated in the investigation proceedings, therefore, I do not find any reasonable apprehension of the present applicant that he shall be arrested after filing of the charge sheet in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Siddharth vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.838 of 2021 and Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director, Criminal Appeal No.929 of 2021.
Para 13 of the Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director (Supra) is being quoted here below:-
"The given factual scenario completely fits the aforesaid as the appellant was never taken into custody during investigation. Suffice to say that it would be a fit case for the trial Court to grant bail to the appellant on the next date on terms and conditions to its satisfaction. As a measure of precaution, largely arising from the manner of submission of public prosecutor before the trial Court, it is made clear that the interim protection granted by this Court would continue till the appropriate order is passed by the trial Court."
In view of the above, since there is no reasonable apprehension of arrest of the present applicant, therefore, I am not passing any order on the anticipatory bail application inasmuch as the anticipatory bail application may be entertained only when there appears any reasonable apprehension of arrest of the applicant.
However, at the same time, it is also directed that the present applicant should appear before the trial court to participate in the trial proceedings and move any appropriate application within a period of three weeks from
today and the learned court below shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders on such application of the applicant in terms of the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Siddharth vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Supra) and Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I . through Director (Supra).
The instant anticipatory bail application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms."
6. By means of order dated 21.10.2022 passed in A-Bail Application No.1787 of 2022, neither the said application was allowed nor the same was rejected but on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner the liberty was given to appear / surrender before the court concerned to file his bail application and such bail application may be considered and disposed of in the light of the dictum of Apex Court rendered in the case in re: Siddharth (supra) and Aman Preet Singh (supra) . Therefore, by means of order dated 21.10.2022 the merit of the aforesaid anticipatory bail application was not touched, so it may not be treated as if the lis has been decided on merits, rather the merit of the issue has not been touched and if the liberty is given to the petitioner to appear before the court concerned to apply for bail may not be treated as the issue has been decided, therefore, such order may not come within the purview of Point No.5 of the aforesaid order of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice. Besides, in the case of Chandra Prakash (supra) wherein the liberty was given to the petitioner to appear before the court concerned he has been granted bail by this Court (Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.) vide order dated 23.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6696 of 2023 (Chandra Prakash and another vs. State of U.P. & others) along with one co-accused, namely, Bhanu Pratap. The same court granted bail to another accused person, namely, Surya Pratap vide order dated 12.04.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4861 of 2023 (Surya Pratap Vs. State of U.P. & others). Therefore, three accused persons in the same crime case have been granted bail by Hon'ble Rajeev Singh, J, whereas in the case of Chandra Prakash (supra) , I had given only liberty to him to appear before the trial court concerned to apply his regular bail. Therefore, it may not be treated as in the same crime case/ FIR, I have decided any bail/ anticipatory bail application of any accused.
7. Further, when the counsel for both the parties had stated on 16.02.2024 that any anticipatory bail application in the same crime case has not been decided by me then before sending the matter before this Court after order dated 16.02.2024, office should perused the order dated 21.10.2022 passed in re: A-Bail Application No.1787 of 2022 (supra) carefully.
8. Instead of seeking explanation from the office as to how office has given note to the effect that lis in the same Crime Number / F.I.R. has been decided by me in A-Bail Application No.1787 of 2022, I hereby direct that the matter be placed before appropriate court in the list of fresh cases in the next week in the list of fresh cases and if need be, the paper-book may be put up before Hon'ble the Chief Justice/ Hon'ble Senior Judge within 24 hours seeking appropriate order.
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
Order Date :- 23.2.2024 Suresh/
Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail given existing juristic rulings on non-custodial arrest.
Whether a prior liberty order granting appearance to file bail precludes the current judge from hearing a fresh bail application under the roster rotation rule.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ravi Pratap @ Ravi Prakash
Rajesh Singh Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
4 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
