Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 1483

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Neeru Kumar Yadav and Another - Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Parties
Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. 8564 of 2023
Decided On : 17-08-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Padmaker Pandey.
For the Opposite Party : G.A., Anurag Shukla.

A person declared as a proclaimed offender and not cooperating with the investigation or trial is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Law - Sections 323, 308 IPC - The court discussed the provisions of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the legal principles established by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prem Shankar Prasad case and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pradeep Sharma. The court emphasized that a person declared as a proclaimed offender and not cooperating with the investigation or trial is not entitled to anticipatory bail.
Fact of the Case:

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in a case involving charges under Sections 323, 308 IPC. The applicant was declared as a proclaimed offender and had failed to cooperate with the trial court.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the applicant, who had been declared as a proclaimed offender and was not cooperating with the trial, was not entitled to anticipatory bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant, who had been declared as a proclaimed offender and was not cooperating with the trial court, was entitled to anticipatory bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal principles established by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prem Shankar Prasad case and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pradeep Sharma, emphasizing that a person declared as a proclaimed offender and not cooperating with the investigation or trial is not entitled to anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: The anticipatory bail application was rejected by the court.

JUDGMENT :

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Crl. Misc. Exemption Application No.02 of 2023 is allowed.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants submits that he is not pressing the anticipatory bail application in respect of applicant no.1 Neeru Kumar Yadav, as he is already under judicial custody. He confines his prayer only to the extent of prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant no.2 Lallan @ Pushpendra Singh during the pendency of trial in Case Crime No.530 of 2018 (Case No.3420 of 2018, State of U.P. Vs. Neeru and Others) under Sections 323, 308 IPC, Police Station Dibiyapur, District Auraiya.

4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant / opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

5. A NCR was filed under section 323 IPC by the informant of the case against the applicants no.1 and 2 along with two other co-accused persons on 24.1.2018 at 20:10 p.m. alleging therein that an assault was made by them with kicks, fists, lathi and danda upon him on 24.1.2018 at 17:00 p.m. During course of investigation, section 308 IPC was added to the matter. Thereafter, after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant no.2 that the applicant is innocent and has no concern with the present matter. He has been falsely implicated in this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Applicant's case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the present case is a cross case and a cross F.I.R. was lodged on behalf of the applicant's side as Case Crime No.73 of 2018 under sections 354, 323, 506 IPC and that was lodged prior to the NCR made by the informant side in this matter.

It is further submitted that no specific role of assault has been assigned to the present applicant in the alleged crime. It is further submitted that except one injury caused to the informant / injured as nasal bone fracture, all other injuries are simple in nature. It is further submitted that during course of investigation the applicant has been cooperative with the investigation of the case. He never received any summon / process by the Court after submission of the charge-sheet and had absolutely no knowledge about the punitive process issued against him by the Court.

It is further submitted that the criminal history of the applicant has been explained by way of supplementary affidavit. On the aforesaid grounds a prayer for grant of anticipatory bail has been made.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant / opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. At the very outset, it has been submitted that process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has already been issued by the court concerned on 16.6.2023 against the applicant no.2 after adopting the required procedure to procure the appearance of the applicant before it.

It is further submitted that the anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant before the Sessions Court was rejected on 14.7.2023 and even on that date the applicant had already been declared as a proclaimed offender by the Court. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar and Another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 955 and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171.

It is further submitted that grievous injuries have been caused to the informant / injured in this case and specific role of assault has been assigned to the present applicant in the statement of the injured himself given to the Investigating Officer under section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the applicant is not cooperating with the trial court at all and in view of the established legal principles for consideration for grant of anticipatory bail, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document