Vivek Pratap Singh @ Daroga Singh @ Gunda Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 801 of 2024

¶3

Vivek Pratap Singh @ Daroga Singh @ Gunda Singh

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s)

¶7

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shailendra Pratap Singh, Atul Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Gyanendra Singh

¶8

Court No. - 15

¶9

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶10

The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 191/2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 504, 506, 427, 307, 308 IPC, Police Station Baghrai, District Pratapgarh, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶12

The coordinate Bench of this Court while granting interim protection vide order dated 12.04.2024 has passed the following order:-

¶13

"Shri Gayendra Singh, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No.2/complainant, which is taken on record.

¶14

Heard Shri Shailendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2/ complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶15

The present anticipatory bail application has been moved by the accused/applicantVivek Pratap Singh @ Daroga Singh @ Gunda Singh in Case Crime No. 191/2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 504, 506, 427, 307, 308 IPC, Police Station

¶16

ABAIL No. 801 of 2024

¶17

2

¶18

Baghrai, District Pratapgarh, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.

¶19

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that it is case of false implication. No specific role of assault has been assigned to the applicant and even if the case of the prosecution is taken on its face, only general allegations have been levelled and barring the informant Maheep Narain Singh all other injured persons (two persons) have sustained minor injuries which are simple in nature.

¶20

It is further submitted that the investigation of the case is pending, however, identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Devendra Bahadur Singh, Rajendra Bahadur Singh @ Rajendra Kumar Singh and Karan Singh @ Abhay Pratap Singh have been granted regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and the copies of these bail orders have been placed at pages no. 72 to 80 of the paper book.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not having any criminal history and even if the case of prosecution is taken on its face no case will emerge so far as Section 307 IPC is concerned.

¶22

Learned AGA, however, opposes the anticipatory bail of the applicant.

¶23

Shri Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel for the complainant/ opposite party no.2 has raised an issue while relying on the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Babu Singh & others Vs. Raj Bahadur Singh and others reported in (2022)11 ILRA 627 emphasizing paragraphs no. 40 to 43 of the same as well as the Section 438 Cr.P.C. in order canvass the argument that when an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the District Court/ Sessions Judge another application may not be entertained/ maintainable before this Court. In this regard the explanation which have occurred in 438(2) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) has been highlighted in order to show that this explanation a reference of the final order made on an application moved under Sub Section (1) of Section 438 Cr.P.C. pertaining to the fact that the same shall not be construed as an interlocutory order for the purpose of this Court.

¶24

It is submitted that when the order passed by the district court it may not be treated as an interlocutory order and only revision of the said order of the Sessions Judge or the trial court shall be maintainable.

¶25

ABAIL No. 801 of 2024

¶26

3

¶27

Prima facie, this Court finds the explanation attached with sub section (2) of Section 438 Cr.P.C. has referred to the Code of Criminal Procedure and any law which has been propounded with regard to the Civil Procedure Code, prima facie may not be applicable to the Code of Criminal Procedure having regard to the difference in the language used under Section 115 CPC vis-a-vis Section 397 to 401 of the Cr.P.C. However, in the opinion of this Court a reasonable time is required to be given to learned counsel for the complainant/ opposite party no.2 to address this Court on the issue which has been raised by him.

¶28

List this matter in the 8th May, 2024 along with Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. Nos.377 of 2024 and 802 of 2024., by which date State, if so wish as well as the complainant may file counter affidavit/ objections, taking into account the issue which has been raised today by learned counsel for the complainant/ opposite party no.2.

¶29

It is provided that till the next date of listing i.e. second week of May, 2024 in the event of the arrest of the applicant- Vivek Pratap Singh @ Daroga Singh @ Gunda Singh involved in the above noted case, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail, on his furnishing personal bonds of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/ Investigating Officer/ Arresting Officer with the following conditions;

¶30

(1) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation or for discovery of any fact by a police officer as and when required;

¶31

(2) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶32

(3) The applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Court."

¶33

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that general allegations have been levelled against the applicant. Charge-sheet in the matter has been filed. The applicant has co-operated in the investigation and further undertakes to cooperate in the trial. It is also submitted that co-accused Chhotu Singh Alias Abhinav Singh

¶34

ABAIL No. 801 of 2024

¶35

4

¶36

and Lav @ Abhinav Singh have been granted anticipatory bail vide orders dated 03.09.2024 passed in CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 530 of 2024 and 802 of 2024.

¶37

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application, however, could not dispute the fact that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation.

¶38

Upon due consideration to the bail orders passed in favour of the co-accused persons named hereinabove; the fact that only a general role has been attributed to the applicant; the charge-sheet having already been submitted; the applicant having duly cooperated during the course of investigation; and the undertaking given on his behalf that he shall continue to cooperate in the trial, and further in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC OnLine SC 98, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the interim protection granted earlier vide order dated 12.04.2024 deserves to be and is hereby made absolute.

¶39

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶40

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶41

January 19, 2026

¶42

R.C.

¶43

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vivek Pratap Singh @ Daroga Singh @ Gunda Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Pratap Singh @ Daroga Singh @ Gunda Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Sachin Kumar (Services No 255371009) vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Home Affairs Govt. New Delhi and 3 Others

Nikhil Panwar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Smt. Akanksha Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas Evam Pustahar Lko. and 5 Others

Sanjay Shukla @ Sanjay Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Affairs Lko.

Rajendra Kumar Verma @ Rajendra Verma @ Raju vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko.

Krishan Gopal Swarnkar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Addl. Chief Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another