Court No. - 80

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No.

- 576 of 2022

Applicant :- Dubbar Yadav

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Dubey

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Pathak,Kamalesh Kumar

Nishad,Ravindra Kumar Srivastava,Vijay Kumari Pathak

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the

applicant, Sri Dharmendra Dhar Dubery, Advocate, holding

brief of Sri Anil Pathak, learned counsel for the opposite

parties, learned AGA for the State and perused the material

placed on record.

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.)

has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 300 of 2019,

under sections 419, 420 & 120-B I.P.C., Police Station

Kasimabad, District Ghazipur.

Facts in brief are that applicant lodged an F.I.R. under sections

419, 420, 120-B I.P.C. against the opposite party, Bharat Kumar

Yadav, who is his own son regarding execution of gift deed by

the opposite parties fraudulently. After investigation charge-

sheet was submitted before the learned court on the basis of

which process was issued. In the meantime, anticipatory bail

was granted by the learned court of additional sessions judge by

order dated 31.05.2022 while imposing conditions that the

opposite party/accused will appear before the learned court

either himself or through his advocate.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that he is

aged about 90 years and is not in a position to walk freely. It is

further submitted that the condition imposed by the learned

court as aforesaid is being continuously violated by the opposite

party, who is government servant in CISF, posted at Hyderabad.

Learned court concerned though issued process against the

opposite party but his attendance is not being ensured as a result

even charge is not being framed against the opposite party.

Therefore, requests to cancel the bail granted in favour of

opposite party no. 2.

Learned counsel for the opposite party opposed the prayer as

aforesaid and urged that in this case no any kind of violation of

condition imposed by the learned court while granting bail has

been made. The opposite party is a government employee and

working in CISF so he appears before the learned court through

counsel as condition was laid in the bail order itself. It is also

argued that the opposite party is ready to appear before the

learned court as and when required by the court.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the perusal

of record, it appears that the learned court imposed the

condition while granting bail that the accused will appear either

himself or through counsel on every date during trial and now

the case is fixed for compliance of provisions under sections

207 Cr.P.C. and framing of charge for which personal

appearance of the accused is required, but applicant did not

appear before the court that was the reason on 27.08.2022,

bailable warrant was issued against the applicant and further

date was fixed. In such circumstances, it appears that applicant

has not appeared before the learned court for compliance of

provisions under section 207 Cr.P.C. as well as for framing of

charge while violating the directions but keeping in view the

fact that he is an employee in CISF, an opportunity is granted in

his favour with direction to appear before the learned court

concerned in person on 27.02.2023. In case, he fails to appear

before the learned trial court, the learned court will be at liberty

to take coercive measures against the accused/opposite party.

Accordingly, this application is disposed of finally.

Order Date :- 28.1.2023

Vibha Singh

Digitally signed by :-

VIBHA SINGH

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad