Dismissed

Navneet Bhadauria @ Navneet Bhadauriya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2025ABAIL/2706/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Third anticipatory bail application in an FIR under multiple IPC sections after the applicant's earlier anticipatory bail was cancelled for repeatedly absenting himself from trial despite orders of this Court and the Supreme Court. Examining order-sheets showing non-appearance and delaying tactics, the court found misuse of bail liberty and rejected the application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Navneet Bhadauria @ Navneet Bhadauriya Vs State of U.P… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8240

¶3

Court No. - 31

¶4

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2706 of 2024

¶5

Applicant :- Navneet Bhadauria @ Navneet Bhadauriya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Purnendu Chakravarty,Alok Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Digvijay Nath Dubey,Jaya Pandey

¶6

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶7

1- Heard Mr. Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Parul Kant, learned Additional Government Advocate-I for the State of U.P., Mr. Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of first informant through video conferencing from Allahabad and perused the record.

¶8

2- After three rounds of litigation before this Court and two rounds of litigation before the Hon’ble Apex Court, this is third anticipatory bail application on behalf of the applicant Navneet Bhadauria seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. No. 363 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, police station Vibhuti Khand, district Lucknow.

¶9

3- Brief facts relating to previous anticipatory bail applications of the applicant, bail cancellation application moved on behalf of the complainant and Petition for Special Leave to Appeals filed by the applicant in this matter, which are required to be stated are as under:-

¶10

3.1- Applicant is named accused and after submission of charge-sheet against him, he is facing trial.

¶11

3.2- Vide order of this Court dated 18.11.2022 passed in anticipatory bail application no. 1841 of 2022, applicant was granted anticipatory bail subject to condition that he shall cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court on each dates unless inevitable.

¶12

3.3- On account of non-cooperation of the applicant in the trial, complainant preferred Bail Cancellation Application No. 37 of 2024 which was allowed vide order of this Court dated 05.07.2024 and the anticipatory bail granted to the applicant was cancelled and the applicant was directed to surrender

¶13

¶14

before the trial court forthwith. The order dated 05.07.2024 reads as under:-

¶15

Heard Mr. Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Virendra, learned A.G.A. representing the State and Mr. Chandan Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 through video conferencing.

¶16

The instant application has been moved by the applicant - Deepak Sharma with a prayer to cancel the anticipatory bail granted vide order of this Court dated 18.11.2022 to opposite party no. 2-Navneet Bhadauria mainly on the ground of violation of condition no.1 of anticipatory bail order dated 18.11.2022, which reads as under :

¶17

"(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court on each dates unless inevitable.

(ii) xxxx

(iii) xxxx

(iv) xxxx"

The only submission of Mr. Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant is that opposite party no. 2 is not cooperating with expeditious disposal of trial. Referring the order-sheet of the trial Court, he submits that on 16.06.2023, 28.06.2023, 27.07.2023, 10.08.2023, 21.08.2023, 17.11.2023, 18.01.2024 and 29.01.2024, opposite party no. 2 did not personally appear before the trial Court and moved exemption applications through his counsel in a casual manner.

¶22

On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the said fact of moving exemption applications, however, he submits that opposite party no. 2 was appearing before the trial Court on the aforesaid dates through his counsel, therefore, it cannot be said that he is not cooperating with expeditious disposal of trial.

¶23

Having heard submission of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that it is not in dispute that on several dates as noted above, opposite party no. 2 did not appear in person and moved applications through his counsel for exemption of his appearance. Record also shows that case is running at a slow pace on account of delaying tactics adopted by accused persons by adopting different modus operandi. Opposite party no. 2 despite granting time vide order dated 17.05.2024 did not file counter affidavit. This Court is also of the view that despite granting anticipatory bail to opposite party no. 2, his non-appearance in person before the trial Court and frequently moving exemption applications on the dates fixed amount to his non-cooperation with the expeditious disposal of the trial.

¶24

In view of the above, order dated 18.11.2022 granting anticipatory bail to opposite party no. 2-Navneet Bhadauria is hereby cancelled. Opposite party no. 2 is directed to surrender before the trial Court forthwith.

¶25

¶26

Accordingly, instant anticipatory bail cancellation application succeeds and is allowed.

¶27

This order be communicated to the concerned trial Court for information.

¶28

3.4- The applicant instead of surrendering challenged the said order of this Court dated 05.07.2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 9752 of 2024, which has been dismissed vide order dated 29.07.2024, which reads as under:-

¶29

"Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.

¶30

The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶31

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of."

¶32

3.5- The applicant even after dismissal of his aforesaid Special Leave to Appeal did not surrender and filed second anticipatory bail application no. 2117 of 2024 before this Court, which was again rejected vide order of this Court dated 25.10.2024. The order dated 25.10.2024 reads as under:-

¶33

1- Heard Mr. Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Arunendra, learned A.G.A. representing the State and Mr. Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel for complainant through video conferencing from Allahabad.

¶34

2- By means of this second anticipatory bail application, the applicant Navneet Bhadauria has prayed for granting anticipatory bail to him in Case Crime No. 363 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, police station Vibhuti Khand, district Lucknow.

¶35

3- The facts that formed the bedrock of this second anticipatory bail application is that earlier applicant moved a Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 1841 of 2022, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2022 and the applicant was granted anticipatory bail with the following conditions :

¶36

(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court on each dates unless inevitable.

¶37

(ii) 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 tamper with the evidence.

¶38

(iii) That the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

¶39

¶40

(iv) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the concerned court below will be at liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail of the applicant after recording reasons.

¶41

4- After the order dated 18.11.2022 granting anticipatory bail, the applicant flouted the order of this Court dated 18.11.2022 and did not cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the trial giving chance to the complainant to file anticipatory bail cancellation application being Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 37 of 2024 with the prayer to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to opposite party No. 2/Navneet Bhadauria mainly on the ground of violation of condition No. 1, i.e. for non-cooperation of the opposite party No. 2 in disposal of the trial.

¶42

5- After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court vide order dated 05.07.2024 cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to opposite party No. 2 and he was directed to surrender before the trial court forthwith. The order dated 05.07.2024 reads as under :

¶43

"Heard Mr. Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Virendra, learned A.G.A. representing the State and Mr. Chandan Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 through video conferencing.

¶44

¶45

"(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court on each dates unless inevitable.

(ii) xxxx

(iii) xxxx

(iv) xxxx"

On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the said fact of moving

¶51

¶52

exemption applications, however, he submits that opposite party no. 2 was appearing before the trial Court on the aforesaid dates through his counsel, therefore, it cannot be said that he is not cooperating with expeditious disposal of trial.

¶53

Having heard submission of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that it is not in dispute that on several dates as noted above, opposite party no. 2 did not appear in person and moved applications through his counsel for exemption of his appearance. Record also shows that case is running at a slow pace on account of delaying tactics adopted by accused persons by adopting different modus operandi. Opposite party no. 2 despite granting time vide order dated 17.05.2024 did not file counter affidavit. This Court is also of the view that despite granting anticipatory bail to opposite party no. 2, his nonappearance in person before the trial Court and frequently moving exemption applications on the dates fixed amount to his non-cooperation with the expeditious disposal of the trial.

¶54

¶55

Accordingly, instant anticipatory bail cancellation application succeeds and is allowed.

¶56

This order be communicated to the concerned trial Court for information."

¶57

6- Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the above order of this Court dated 05.07.2024, the applicant-Navneet Bhadauria approached Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 9752 of 2024, which has been dismissed vide order dated 29.07.2024. The order dated 29.07.2024 reads as under :

¶58

"Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.

¶59

The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶60

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of."

¶61

7- Even after dismissal of above Special Leave to Appeal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applicant did not surrender before the trial court and kept on absconding till date.

¶62

8- After cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicant vide order dated 05.07.2024, when applicant did not surrender, nonbailable warrant was issued against him pursuant to order dated 22.07.2024 of the trial Court and next date was fixed for

¶63

¶64

17.08.2024. The applicant instead of surrendering moved an application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. (Section 72 BNSS) on technical ground and also preferred application under Section 88 Cr.P.C. (Section 91 BNSS) with a prayer to accept the bond. Both these applications have been rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 21.08.2024 observing inter alia that the case is at the stage of framing of charge and despite issuance of nonbailable warrant after cancellation of his anticipatory bail, he is not appearing before the trial Court. The said order dated 21.08.2024 was challenged by the applicant before the High Court at Lucknow Bench by means of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 7515 of 2024, which has been dismissed vide detailed order dated 30.08.2024.

¶65

9- Main substratum of argument of Mr. Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant is that after cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicant vide order dated 05.07.2024 by this Court and dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 9752 of 2024 of the applicant-Navneet Bhadauria by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 29.07.2024, the bail cancellation application being Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 36 of 2024 and Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 38 of 2024 in respect of other co-accused, namely, Vijay Pal Prajapati and Rajeev Lochan Paliwal (who were earlier granted anticipatory bail) have been dismissed by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.09.2024, therefore, applicant is entitled to get anticipatory bail even after order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶66

10- On the other hand, Mr. Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed by contending that this Court while cancelling anticipatory bail of the applicant vide order dated 05.07.2024 had directed the applicant to surrender before the trial Court forthwith. The said order has been confirmed by the Apex Court vide order dated 29.07.2024 as noted above. Even then applicant despite issuance of nonbailable warrant did not surrender. It is also pointed out that the order dated 21.08.2024 was also challenged by the applicant in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 7515 of 2024, which has been dismissed vide order dated 30.08.2024 and the same has also attained finality because said order dated 30.08.2024 was not further challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court. So far as order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of bail cancellation application of coaccused is concerned, it is pointed out that aforesaid order dated 02.09.2024 has been passed by the coordinate Bench without considering the order dated 05.07.2024 of this Court and order dated 29.07.2024 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Much emphasis has been given by contending that the trial is being delayed on account of non-cooperation of the applicant and this fact has also been mentioned by the trial Court in the order dated 21.08.2024, therefore, the applicant deliberately did not file the said order dated 21.08.2024 of the trial Court and order dated 30.08.2024 of the coordinate bench of this Court alongwith this anticipatory

¶67

¶68

bail application dated 08.09.2024, as such, applicant has not come with clean hand before this Court.

¶69

11- Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter, I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for complainant. This Court is of the view that since the order dated 05.07.2024 of this Court cancelling anticipatory bail granted to the applicant-Navneet Bhadauria has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 9752 of 2024 vide order dated 29.07.2024 and the matter has already been set at rest in respect of anticipatory bail application of the applicant, I do not find any good ground to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶70

12- The second anticipatory bail application is accordingly rejected.

¶71

3.6- The above order of this Court dated 25.10.2024 was again challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 15856 of 2024, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 22.11.2024 with certain clarification, which reads as under:-

¶72

The petitioner seeks leave to challenge the order 25.10.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2117/2024.

¶73

Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner. In view of the order which we propose to pass, we deem it absolutely unnecessary to issue notice to the respondent-State.

¶74

Learned senior counsel would submit that the order dated 29.7.2024 passed by this Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 9752/2024 act as a legal trammel for the petitioner to move the High Court afresh. It is further submitted that under similar circumstances, in the case of the co-accused, rather the main accused in the subject crime, though cancellation was sought for, it was declined.

¶75

Taking into account all such contentions and without making any observation(s) on the merits, we make it clear that the order dated 29.7.2024 passed by this Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 9752/2024 would not be a legal trammel for the petitioner in moving fresh application for anticipatory bail before the High Court. Needless to say that in case, such an application is moved, the same shall be considered on its own merits.

¶76

In view of the fact that earlier the High Court itself granted interim protection to the petitioner and also in case of the coaccused his bail was declined to be cancelled, the petitioner is granted interim protection for a period of two weeks from today to enable him to move fresh application as mentioned above.

¶77

The special leave petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty and clarification.

¶78

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶79

¶80

4- In the aforesaid background, applicant has preferred this third anticipatory bail application before this Court.

¶81

5- It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 22.11.2024 while dismissing the Special Leave Petition of the applicant against the order dated 25.10.2024 of this Court granted interim protection to the applicant for a period of two weeks to enable him to move fresh anticipatory bail application, hence applicant has preferred this third anticipatory bail application mainly on the ground mentioned in paragraph No. 33 of the anticipatory bail application, which is quoted herein below:-

¶82

“33) That the present third Anticipatory Bail Application is being preferred on the following grounds amongst others: -

¶83

a. Because by the order dated 22.11.2024 in SLP No. 15856/2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted liberty to the applicant to file fresh anticipatory bail application for anticipatory bail before the Hon'ble High Court.

¶84

b. Because the Bail Cancellation Applications No. 36 of 2024 and 38 of 2024 have been rejected by this Hon'ble Court on the ground that on none of the dates, the case could not proceed because of absence of accused persons. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the accused persons are delaying disposal of the trial and in fact, the trial is yet to commence.

¶85

c. Because the applicant has also not caused any impediments in the proceedings of the trial.

¶86

d. Because the Order Sheet reveals that the applicant remained present before the trial court on many dates and on some of the dates, his exemption application under section 228 BNSS (corresponding section 205 Cr.P.C.) has been allowed by the Learned Trial Court.

¶87

e. Because the subsequent/substantial changed circumstances which has now emerged after 02.09.2024 when this Hon'ble Court has rejected the Bail Cancellation Applications of two other coaccused persons.

¶88

f. Because the perusal of the ordersheet of Ld. Trial Court reflects that infact, none of the accused have caused any delay in the trial court proceedings.”

¶89

6- Referring the order-sheet of the trial court, it is argued that neither applicant nor other co-accused caused any impediment in the trial proceedings. The applicant has preferred his discharge application without obtaining documents under Section 230 of B.N.S.S. (corresponding Section 207 Cr.P.C.) on the basis of material facts of the

¶90

¶91

case, therefore, applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶92

7- On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant by contending that there are four accused in this case but on the dates, some of them appeared while others move exemption application and as such, they in collusion with each other and in a pre-planned manner, lingering on the trial proceedings on one pretext or the other and before the trial court, only general dates are being fixed without any effective proceedings. Much emphasis has been given by contending that applicant cannot be said to be a law abiding person and he is habitual to violate the orders passed by the Courts. He further submits that despite the orders dated 5.7.2024 passed by this Court and order dated 29.7.2024 passed by Hon’ble Apex Court, he did not surrender. The accused persons after filing discharge applications repeatedly moving exemption applications, hence, general dates for hearing on discharge application are being fixed since 18.1.2024. Lastly it is submitted that there is no new ground in the instant third anticipatory bail application. All the grounds which have been raised in this third anticipatory bail application have already been considered by this Court in the order dated 5.7.2024 and 25.10.2024, hence, the instant anticipatory bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.

¶93

8- Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that F.I.R. was lodged on 23.7.2021 against four persons, namely, Anand Kumar Singh alias Baba Trikaldarshi, Rajiv Lochan Paliwal, applicantNavneet Singh Bhadauriya and Vijay Pal Prajapati, in which after culmination of investigation, charge-sheet dated 01.6.2022 was submitted against the applicant and coaccused Vijay Pal Prajapati as well as Rajiv Lochan Paliwal and at that time, investigation against Anand Kumar Singh alias Baba Trikaldarshi was pending and later on supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against him. On the said charge-sheet dated 01.6.2024, the trial court took cognizance on 19.7.2022. The applicant was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 18.11.2022 during trial, subject to condition No. (i) that applicant shall cooperate in

¶94

¶95

the expeditious disposal of trial and shall regularly attend the court on each dates unless inevitable. Thereafter, applicant appeared before the trial court on 20.1.2023 and submitted his bail bonds, which were verified on the same day. Subsequently, on account of violation of said condition No. (i) of order dated 18.11.2022, the anticipatory bail of the applicant has been cancelled by this Court vide order dated 5.7.2024. Since the main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that none of the accused persons have caused any delay in the trial proceeding, therefore, this Court feels that it would be appropriate to mention the relevant facts regarding appearance and non-appearance of the applicant, co-accused Rajeev Lochan Paliwal and Vijay Pal Prajapati before the trial Court after granting anticipatory bail to them, as reflect from the order-sheet of the trial court, which are as under:-

¶96

About ApplicantNavneet Bhadauria

¶97

8.1- On 30.1.2023, 16.2.2023, 29.3.2023, 12.4.2023, 17.10.2023, 15.5.2024 and 21.5.2024, applicant was present before the trial Court.

¶98

8.2- On 28.2.2023, 14.3.2023, 26.4.2023, 13.7.2023, 6.5.2023, 18.5.2023, 13.5.2023, 14.6.2023, 28.6.2023, 27.7.2023, 10.8.2023, 21.8.2023, 17.11.2023, 18.1.2024, 29.1.2024, 13.2.2024, 21.2.2024, 1.4.2024 and 15.4.2024, applicant did not appear before the trial Court and moved exemption application.

¶99

8.3- On 17.10.2023 applicant filed his discharge application. 8.4- On 22.7.2024, non-bailable warrant was issued against the applicant.

¶100

8.5- On 17.8.2024, counsel for the applicant appeared and pressed an application under Section 88 Cr.P.C. and another application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. on which, applicant was directed to appear in person on the next date, i.e., 21.8.2024, but despite having knowledge, he did not appear in person and his aforesaid applications were dismissed vide order 21.8.2024, which was challenged by the applicant in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 7515 of 2024 but the same too has been dismissed vide order dated 30.08.2024. The order dated 30.08.2024 has also attained finality. Thereafter on the next dates, i.e., 30.8.2024,

¶101

¶102

10.9.2024 and 18.9.2024, the applicant again did not appear.

¶103

8.6- On 23.9.2024, Non Bailable Warrant had been issued against the applicant fixing 30.10.2024 for further proceeding/framing of charge and disposal of discharge application but on 30.10.2024, applicant also did not appear.

¶104

8.7- Order-sheet clearly reflects that on 17.10.2023, applicant moved discharge application, on which, argument on discharge application was partly heard on 15.5.2024 and next date was fixed for 21.5.2024 for further argument, but on account of non-cooperation of the applicant, till date, discharge application has not been decided.

¶105

8.8- Order-sheet also reflects that vide order dated 12.4.2023, further date was fixed for 24.4.2023 in presence of applicant and other co-accused, namely, Anand Singh as well as Rajiv Lochan for giving documents to them, but thereafter, applicant became continuously absent from 24.4.2023, therefore, it cannot be said that the documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were not supplied to him within reasonable time.

¶106

About co-accused- Rajeev Lochan Paliwal

¶107

8.9- The order sheet of the trial court indicates that coaccused Rajeev Lochan Paliwal was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 20.10.2022, thereafter he was present on 14.11.2022, 28.11.2022, 9.12.2022, 22.12.2022, 4.1.2023, 17.1.2023, 30.1.2023, 16.2.2023, 28.2.2023, 14.3.2023, 29.3.2023, 12.4.2023 and 31.5.2023, 13.7.2023, 27.7.2023, 10.9.2024, 18.9.2024, 23.9.2024.

¶108

8.10- On 24.4.2023, 6.5.2023, 18.5.2023, 14.06.2023, 28.6.2023, 10.8.2023, 21.8.2023, 17.11.2023, 29.1.2024, 13.2.2024, 21.2.2024, 1.4.2024, 1.4.2024, 21.5.2024, 30.10.2024 he did not appear and moved his exemption application.

¶109

About co-accused- Vijay Pal Prajapati

¶110

8.11- So far as co-accused Vijay Pal Prajapati is concerned, he was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 16.01.2024. Thereafter he appeared before the trial Court on 15.4.2024, 15.5.2024, 10.9.2024, 18.9.2024 and 30.10.2024.

¶111

¶112

8.12- On 18.1.2024, 29.1.2024, 13.2.2024, 21.2.2024, 1.4.2024, 21.5.2024 and 6.6.2024 he did not appear and moved his exemption application.

¶113

8.13- The co-accused Rajiv Lochan Paliwal and Vijay Pal Prajapati have also filed their discharge applications on 30.8.2024, which are also pending. Co-accused Anand Kumar Singh moved a discharge application on 10.9.2024 and they were given document relating to supplementary police report. On account of non-appearance of all the accused persons together, final hearing on their discharge applications could not take place and only general dates are being fixed which amounts to creating hindrance in smooth proceeding of the trial.

¶114

8.14- So far as observation made by the co-ordinate Bench in para 13 of the order dated 02.09.2024 that on none of the dates, the case could not proceed because of absence of the accused persons is concerned, I find that the trial Court in the order dated 22.12.2022 has mentioned inter alia that anticipatory bail of accused Vijay Pal Prajapati has been rejected by the Sessions Judge and he is not appearing, therefore, trial is being affected and non-bailable warrant has been issued against him.

¶115

9- On 24.01.2025, following order was passed by this Court:-

¶116

“The case is taken up through video conferencing from Allahabad.

¶117

After advancing several arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has given stretch by contending that the applicant is not causing any impediment in smooth running of the case before the trial court.

¶118

On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant submits that on account of non co-operation of the applicant and other co-accused persons, proceedings before the trial court is being lingered on. He also submits that non-bailable warrants are also going on against the applicant.

¶119

I find that the applicant has filed the order sheet of the trial court up to 30.10.2024.

¶120

In view of the above, this Court feels that it would be appropriate to call for a report from the concerned Presiding Officer.

¶121

¶122

Let a report be called for from the concerned Presiding Officer with regard to present status of trial of the applicant and aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

¶123

List this case again on 07.02.2025 along with the report of concerned Presiding Officer.”

¶124

10- Pursuant to order of this Court dated 24.1.2025, trial court has submitted its report, which is reproduced hereinunder:-

¶125

"प्रेषक,

¶126

पीयूष त्रि�पाठी,

¶127

अपर मुख्य न्यायियक मजि�स्ट्रेट त्रि�तीय,

कक्ष संख्या 26, लखनऊ

सेवा में,

�ारा:

उपत्रिनबंधक (त्रि(त्रिमनल बेल), माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, खंडपीठ लखनऊ, लखनऊ।

¶132

माननीय �नपद न्यायाधीश, लखनऊ।

¶133

त्रिवषयः त्रि(त्रिमनल एंटीजिसपेटरी बेल एप्लीकेशन नंबर 2706/2024, नवनीत भदौरिरया बनाम उ.प्र. राज्य में पारिरत आदेश त्रिदनांत्रिकत 24.01.2025 के माध्यम से माननीय उच्च न्यायालय �ारा मु.अ.सं. 363/2021, अंतर्ग8त धारा 406, 420, 323, 504, 506, 467, 468, 471 भा.दं.सं., थाना त्रिवभूयितखंड, �नपद लखनऊ के संबंध में मांर्गी र्गयी स्टेटस रिरपोट8 के संबंध में।

¶134

महोदय,

¶135

माननीय महोदय �ारा उपरोक्त त्रिवषयक के संबंध में मांर्गी र्गयी आख्या के संबंध में ससम्मान अवर्गत कराना है त्रिक मु.अ.सं. 363/2021, अंतर्ग8त धारा 406, 420, 323, 504, 506, 467, 468, 471 भा.दं.सं., थाना त्रिवभूयितखंड, �नपद लखनऊ, सरकार बनाम त्रिव�यपाल प्र�ापयित एवं अन्य की प�ावली इस न्यायालय में लंत्रिबत है।

¶136

प�ावली के अवलोकन पर पाया र्गया त्रिक प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में अभिभयुक्तर्गण त्रिव�य पाल प्र�ापयित, रा�ीव लोचन पालीवाल एवं नवनीत भदौरिरया के त्रिवरुद्ध अंतर्ग8त धारा 406, 420, 323, 504, 506, 467, 468, 471 भा.दं.सं. में आरोपप� दाखिखल त्रिकया र्गया , जि�स पर संज्ञान त्रिदनांक 19.07.2022 को खिलया र्गया। अभिभयुक्तर्गण के त्रिवरुद्ध सम्मन �ारी त्रिकया र्गया, जि�सके उपरांत प्रकरण में अभिभयुक्त आनन्द कुमार सिंसह के त्रिवरुद्ध अनुपूरक आरोपप� न्यायालय में दाखिखल त्रिकया र्गया , जि�स पर त्रिदनांक 08.09.2022 को प्रसंज्ञान खिलया र्गया। प�ावली पर अभिभयुक्तर्गण की उपस्थिस्थयित हेतु आदेभिशकाएं �ारी की र्गयीं। माननीय उच्च न्यायालय �ारा आदेश त्रिदनांत्रिकत 18.11.2022 नवनीत भदौरिरया की अत्रिKम �मानत प्रदान की र्गयी। अभिभयुक्त �ारा त्रिदनांक 20.01.2023 को �मानतनामा न्यायालय में दाखिखल त्रिकया र्गया, जि�से तस्दीक त्रिकया र्गया। प�ावली अन्य अभिभयुक्तर्गण की हाजि�री हेतु त्रिनयत हुई, जि�सके उपरांत माननीय उच्च न्यायालय �ारा आदेश त्रिदनांत्रिकत 05.07.2024 �ारा अभिभयुक्त नवनीत भदौरिरया की अंतरिरम �मानत त्रिनरस्त करते हुए अभिभयुक्त नवनीत भदौरिरया को अत्रिवलंब न्यायालय के समक्ष आत्मसमप8ण करने हेतु आदेभिशत त्रिकया र्गया, जि�सके उपरांत अभिभयुक्त नवनीत भदौरिरया �ारा व्यत्रिक्तर्गत रूप से न्यायालय में

¶137

¶138

उपस्थिस्थत न होते हुए उनके �ारा न्यायालय में �रिरए अयिधवक्ता प्राथ8नाप� अंतर्ग8त धारा 88 व 70 (2) दं.प्र.सं. प्रस्तुत त्रिकया र्गया, जि�से इस न्यायालय �ारा त्रिदनांक 21.08.2024 को त्रिनरस्त करते हुए अभिभयुक्त नवनीत भदौरिरया को माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश त्रिदनांत्रिकत 05.07.2024 के अनु(म में अत्रिवलंब आत्मसमप8ण करने हेतु आदेभिशत त्रिकया र्गया। प�ावली त्रिदनांक 30.08.2024 के खिलए त्रिनयत की र्गयी। उक्त यितभिथ तथा उसके उपरांत त्रिनयत यितभिथ 10.09.2024 तथा 18.09.2024 को अभिभयुक्त नवनीत भदौरिरया न्यायालय में उपस्थिस्थत नहीं आये। जि�सके उपरांत त्रिदनांक 23.09.2024 को अभिभयुक्त नवनीत भदौरिरया के त्रिवरुद्ध एन .बी. डब्लू, �ारी त्रिकया र्गया। माननीय उच्च न्यायालय �ारा आदेश त्रिदनांत्रिकत 25.10.2024 �ारा अभिभयुक्त नवनीत भदौरिरया का त्रि�तीय अत्रिKम �मानत प्राथ8नाप� त्रिनरस्त त्रिकया र्गया। जि�सके पश्चात अभिभयुक्त नवनीत भदौरिरया �ारा त्रिदनांक 29.11.2024 को �रिरए अयिधवक्ता न्यायालय में अभिभयुक्त �ारा माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय में दाखिखल पेटीशन फॉर स्पेशल लीव टू अपील (त्रि(०) नंबर 15856/2024 में पारिरत आदेश त्रिदनांत्रिकत 22.11.2024 की प्रयित प्रस्तुत की र्गयी। माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के उक्त आदेश के अवलोकन पर यह पाया र्गया त्रिक माननीय उच्बतम न्यायालय �ारा उक्त बाद में यायिचकाकता8 को अंतरिरम राहत प्रदान करते हुए दो सप्ताह के अंदर नवीन प्राथ8नाप� प्रस्तुत करने हेतु समय प्रदान त्रिकया र्गया था, जि�स पर इस न्यायालय �ारा त्रिदनांक 29.11.2025 को आदेश पारिरत करते हुए माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के उपरोक्त आदेश के अनु(म में उपरोक्त वाद में अभिभयुक्त के त्रिवरुद्ध �ारी कोई भी प्रोसेस अदम तामीला वापस कराते हुए अभिभयुक्त को आदेभिशत त्रिकया र्गया त्रिक यत्रिद 15 त्रिदवस के अंदर उसके �ारा कोई प्राथ8नाप� माननीय उच्च न्यायालय में दाखिखल त्रिकया �ाता है तो उसके संबंध में और माननीय उच्च न्यायालय �ारा उक्त प्राथ8नाप� पर , �ो भी आदेश पारिरत त्रिकया �ाता है, उससे न्यायालय को अत्रिवलंब अवर्गत कराये। परंतु अभी तक अभिभयुक्त नवनीत भदौरिरया �ारा न तो कोई आदेश दाखिखल त्रिकया र्गया है और न ही वह न्यायालय उपस्थिस्थत आ रहा है। जि�स कारण उपरोक्त वाद में अत्रिKम काय8वाही संभव नहीं हो पा रही है। शेष अभिभयुक्तर्गण त्रिव�य पाल प्र�ापयित , रा�ीव लोचन पालीवाल एवं आनन्द कुमार सिंसह न्यायालय उपस्थिस्थत आ रहे हैं। प�ावली वास्ते हाजि�री त्रिदनांक 01.03.2024 को त्रिनयत है।

¶139

अतः महोदय से ससम्मान त्रिनवेदन है त्रिक उपरोक्त स्टेटस रिरपोट8 माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के समक्ष रखने की कृपा करें।

¶140

त्रिदनांकः 05.02.2025”

¶141

11- Here it is relevant to mention that parameters for granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and cancellation of bail/ anticipatory bail are different. The order dated 18.11.2022 granting anticipatory bail to the applicant was earlier cancelled vide order of this Court dated 5.7.2024 only on the ground of his non-cooperation before the trial court. In this third anticipatory bail application also, there is no clear averment/undertaking of the applicant that in future he will appear in person on each and every dates fixed before the trial court. Order-sheet reflects that charge-sheet has been submitted in this case on 1.6.2022, on which trial court took cognizance on 19.7.2022, but on account of non-cooperation of applicant adopting different modus operandi in collusion with co-accused persons, till date, no effective proceeding could take place. Hence, this Court feels that it is a case of misuse of liberty of anticipatory bail, hence I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶142

¶143

12-In view of the above, the instant third anticipatory bail application of applicant-Navneet Bhadauria @ Navneet Bhadauriya sans merit and is hereby rejected.

¶144

Order Date :- 7.2.2025 Shubham

¶145

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

Navneet Bhadauria @ Navneet Bhadauriya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Navneet Bhadauria @ Navneet Bhadauriya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kamruddin @ Kamruddin Siddiqui vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dipanshu Tiwari and Ors. vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lko and Ors.

Satyam Alias Sattan Kol vs State of U.P.

Ziauddin Ahmad Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Ziauddin Ahmad Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Navneet Bhadauria @ Navneet Bhadauriya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow