Mohan Pratap Urf Monu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:6438

Court No. - 78

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42647 of 2024

Applicant :- Mohan Pratap Urf Monu And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Swapnil Sinha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

1. List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Swapnil Sinha, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Mohan Pratap @ Monu, Arvind @ Guddu, Himanshu @ Golu and Pradeep Kumar with the prayers to quash the impugned order dated 25.10.2024 and order dated 23.11.2024 passed by the learned Session Judge, Bulandshahr in Session Trial No. 1964/2024 (State Vs. Mohan Pratap @ Monu and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 320/2023, under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC, P.S. Aurangabad, District Bulandshahr and with a further prayer to stay the effect and operation of the aforesaid orders, during the pendency of the present application.

¶9

The facts of the matter are that the applicants were granted bail vide orders dated 03.01.2024 for the applicant no.1, 07.12.2023 for the applicant no.2 and 12.01.2024 for the applicant nos.3 and 4 on the strength of which they were released from jail. After the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions on 17.10.2024 the next date fixed therein was 25.10.2024 and since then the applicants failed to appear and thus the trial court concerned issued non bailable warrants against them. Despite the same, the applicants did not appear before the trial court and thus on 23.11.2024 the trial court cancelled the bail granted to the accused applicants and also directed issuance of notice to their sureties. The records show that subsequently on 25.11.2024 the accused applicants have filed an application for cancellation of the non bailable warrants.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the order cancelling bail to the applicants is a totally illegal order, inasmuch

¶11

as, the trial court should have had issued notices first to them before cancellation of bail and then if they would not have responded or if it would have come to the conclusion that bail needs to be cancelled, then the bail should have been cancelled. He has relied upon an order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 30.09.2022 in Crl. Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 6779 of 2022 (Rajendra Kumar and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and another) . It is submitted while placing para 13 to 17 of the said order that the trial court should not have resorted to cancel the bail but should have issued notices first to them and then if it was necessary should have proceeded to cancel their bail. It is submitted that as such the orders impugned be set aside.

¶12

Learned counsel for the State opposed the petition vehemently and submitted that the present matter shows that after the day of committal, the accused applicants failed to appear before the trial court concerned and non bailable warrants were issued against them. It is submitted that there is no reason spelled out for justifying their non appearance. It is submitted that the same is clearly misuse of liberty of bail and as such the trial court vide order dated 23.11.2024 has cancelled their bail and had issued notices to their sureties. It is submitted that the present petition is devoid of any merit and be dismissed.

¶13

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicants were granted bail by various orders consequent to which they were released from jail. The matter was committed to the Court of Sessions on 17.10.2024 and 25.10.2024 was fixed as a next date. The accused applicants failed to appear before the trial court since then and non bailable warrants were issued against them. Subsequently, the trial court again issued non bailable warrants against them on 07.11.2024 since they did not appear. Lastly on 23.11.2024 again on their non appearance, the trial court cancelled their bail and was issued notices to their sureties. An application for cancellation of the non bailable warrants has been filed which is stated to be pending.

¶14

The judgment relied by learned counsel for the applicants relates to a matter in which bail of the applicants accused therein was cancelled on violation of conditions of bail. The facts of the said case Rajendra Kumar and 2 others (supra) and the present case are different. In the said case, the allegation was of tampering with evidence but in the present case, the conduct of the accused applicants is shown of not appearing before the trial court concerned subsequent to its committal. The trial court thus in the present case was left with no option but to cancel the bail after it

¶15

had twice issued non bailable warrants against them. Thus, the said case is distinguishable on facts as that of the present case. Even otherwise, an accused who has been granted bail is duty bound to appear before the trial court concerned on every date. If for any reason he is unable to appear, there are provisions itself be taken up at his end for seeking exemption. In the present case, nothing as such is shown on record, the applicants thus were not needed to be put to notice before cancellation of bail since it was their duty to keep track of the proceedings and dates before the trial court.

¶16

The present matter is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed, it is as such dismissed.

¶17

After this order was passed learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants shall be appearing before the trial court for which some time may be granted. Since the bail of the applicants have been cancelled vide order dated 23.11.2024 and it is about two months since then and it is a case of they not yet surrendering, it is provided that if the applicants surrender before the trial court and apply for fresh bail within 7 days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.

¶18

For a period one week from today or till appearance of the applicants, whichever is earlier, the non-bailable warrants be kept in abeyance. However, if the applicants do not appear in the aforesaid time, the court concerned shall proceed as per law.

¶19

Order Date :- 15.1.2025 M. ARIF

¶20

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohan Pratap Urf Monu and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Pratap Urf Monu and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases