Dharm Pal Singh Alias Dharmpal Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:35921

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 663 of 2025

Applicant :- Dharm Pal Singh Alias Dharmpal Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail in Complaint case no.1063/1993, under sections - 419, 420, 467, 468,471 IPC. Police Station- Tarabganj, DistrictGonda.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that there was property dispute in between the father of the applicants as well as complainant which was decided in favour of the father of the applicants and only with the intention to make pressure on the father of the applicant complaint in question was filed and at the time of alleged incident applicants were minor and they were also dragged and the summoning order was passed by the learned court below in the said complaint.

¶9

In Crl Misc. Application under section 482 CrPC No.1249/2001 interim protection was granted. As during the pendency of the aforesaid petition the father of the applicant died, therefore, the said petition was dismissed due to non prosecution.

¶10

He further submitted that against the decision of the appellate authority in the civil matter the second appeal no.943/1981 was filed by the private respondent the same is also dismissed.

¶11

As the applicant was not aware about the pendency of the complaint in question and dismissal of the aforesaid petition under section 482 CrPC which was filed by the father of the applicant before this Court as a result non bailable warrant/ proceedings under section 82 CrPC was issued by the competent Court on 18.12.2024. Impugned proceedings came into the notice of the applicant and thereafter he immediately preferred application for anticipatory bail but the same was rejected on the ground that proceedings under section 82/83 CrPC has already been issued in the complaint case.

¶12

He further submitted that the applicant is ready to cooperate in the proceedings. He never misused the liberty and he does not have any criminal antecedents and, therefore, may be enlarged on the anticipatory bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant but the submission of counsel for applicant is not disputed on the basis of the documents annexed with the petition, the observation made by the learned court below in the rejection order that civil proceedings was pending in between the parties which was decided in favour of the petitioners’ side and thereafter complaint in question was filed and proceedings of the said case was stayed by this Court in petition under section 482 CrPC No.1249/2001 but the stay order was vacated in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing Private Limited vs. CBI reported in (2018) 3 SCC 297 and he also admitted this fact that the issue was again reopened by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case and decided that in case the interim order granted by this Court is not extended after six months due to non listing of the case then the same will not be vacated automatically.

¶14

Considering submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the petition as well as other relevant documents as civil dispute was going on between the parties which was allowed in favour of the petitioner and other family members and the complaint was filed against the father of the applicants as well the applicants. At the time of incident applicants were minor and the proceedings were stayed by this Court but later on the stay was vacated due to death of father of applicant for want of prosecution and thereafter the learned trial court proceeded further.

¶15

In such circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled for the anticipatory bail. In case the applicant is taken into custody by the Investigating Officer/ Investigating Agency, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail after taking personal bond of Rs.25000/- and two sureties each in the like amount with the following conditions.

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶17

(ii) 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.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

With above directions, the anticipatory bail application is disposed of.

¶20

Order Date :- 18.6.2025 mks

¶21

Digitally signed by :- MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dharm Pal Singh Alias Dharmpal Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharm Pal Singh Alias Dharmpal Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. 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

Raju Yadav and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Robin Gorge Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru.the Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Shivam Pandey and Others Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Divyanshu Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko

Babu Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Bheemshankar Pathak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.