# Alok Kumar Singh v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 430
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-26
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application (U/S 438 Cr.P.C.) No. 3979 of 2023
- **Bench:** Krishan Pahal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/alok-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-50217
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code,1973-Section 438 - Indian Penal
Code,1860-Sections 354, 354B, 323, 504
& 506- application-rejection- There is a
dispute between the parties over the
disposal of garbage etc. an altercation has
taken place between the parties -the
applicant has agitated the provisions of
Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has failed- the
applicant and co-accused persons have
outraged the modesty of two women and
had even torn off the clothes of the
informant-The
said
allegations
stand
fortified
by
the
statements
of
the
informant and the victim recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C-The other co-accused
have not been enlarged on anticipatory
bail, rather they have been enlarged on
regular
bail
by
Session
Court-The
applicant is not entitled for anticipatory
bail as he is used to filing several
applications at various forums and has
delayed the trial since 2020- He is not
cooperating and the matter is pending
since last three years- it is the applicant,
who has stalled the trial at one pretext or
the other by moving several applications
and this is the fourth anticipatory bail
application.
The
proceedings
under
Section 82 Cr.P.C. have been initiated
against the applicant-Hence, it is not a fit
case for granting the anticipatory bail to
the applicant. (Para 1 to 19)

The application is rejected. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory
bail to the applicants.

11. The present anticipatory bail
application is hereby found devoid of
merits and is accordingly dismissed.

12. It is clarified that the observations
made herein are limited to the facts brought
in by the parties pertaining to the disposal
of anticipatory bail application and the said
observations shall have no bearing on the
merits of the case during trial.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 430
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application (U/S 438
Cr.P.C.) No. 3979 of 2023

Alok Kumar Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Zafar Abbas, Sri Sushil Kumar Tewari

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Sri Deepak Kumar Srivastava, Sri
Mukesh Joshi

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code,1973-Section 438 - Indian Penal
Code,1860-Sections 354, 354B, 323, 504
& 506- application-rejection- There is a
dispute between the parties over the
disposal of garbage etc. an altercation has
taken place between the parties -the
applicant has agitated the provisions of
Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has failed- the
applicant and co-accused persons have
outraged the modesty of two women and
had even torn off the clothes of the
informant-The
said
allegations
stand
fortified
by
the
statements
of
the
informant and the victim recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C-The other co-accused
have not been enlarged on anticipatory
bail, rather they have been enlarged on
regular
bail
by
Session
Court-The
applicant is not entitled for anticipatory
bail as he is used to filing several
applications at various forums and has
delayed the trial since 2020- He is not
cooperating and the matter is pending
since last three years- it is the applicant,
who has stalled the trial at one pretext or
the other by moving several applications
and this is the fourth anticipatory bail
application.
The
proceedings
under
Section 82 Cr.P.C. have been initiated
against the applicant-Hence, it is not a fit
case for granting the anticipatory bail to
the applicant. (Para 1 to 19)

The application is rejected. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Suresh Babu Vs St. of U.P. & anr. ABAIL No.
3532 of 2022

2. Lavesh Vs State (NCT of Delhi)

3. Chandmal Vs St. of M.P. & anr.

4. Satender Kumar Antil Vs C.B.I. & anr.

5. Puran Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Zafar Abbas and Sushil
Kumar Tewari, learned counsels for the
applicant and Sri Deepak Kumar Srivastava
and Sri Mukesh Joshi, learned counsels for
the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar,
learned A.G.A. for the State and also
perused the record.

2. The present anticipatory bail
application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 1277 of
5 All. Alok Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P.
431
2020, under Sections 354, 354B, 323, 504,
506 IPC, Police Station Majhola, District
Moradabad, with a prayer to enlarge him
on anticipatory bail.

Prosecution Story:

3. As per prosecution story, on
07.10.2020 at about 5.30 pm, the daughter
of the informant had gone to see the water
in the overhead tank of the house. Seeing
her alone, the applicant Alok Kumar
Mishra is stated to have outraged her
modesty. On hearing her shrieks, the
informant and her son came to the scene of
occurrence. On seeing them, the applicant
is stated to have called his wife and a friend
at the scene of occurrence, and assaulted
the informant and her son Prakhar Gupta.
The applicant is stated to have also
outraged the modesty of the informant and
torn her clothes. The said incident has been
video-recorded in the CCTV camera and
the mobile.

Arguments for the Applicant:

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
has stated that he is maliciously being
prosecuted in the present case due to
ulterior motive.The applicant has nothing
to do with the said offence as alleged by the
prosecution. Learned counsel has further
stated that the FIR is delayed by about
eleven days and there is no explanation of
the said delay caused. Learned counsel has
further stated that the applicant has genuine
apprehension of arrest, as the police is
continuously raiding his house. It is also
stated by learned counsel that prior to the
present anticipatory bail application, the
applicant had also filed an CRIMINAL
MISC
ANTICIPATORY
BAIL
APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No.
1018 of 2021 and he was granted
anticipatory bail till the submission of
police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C.
vide order dated 19.2.2021.

5. Learned counsel has further stated
that after the filing of the final report
(charge sheet) by the investigating officer,
the applicant filed another CRIMINAL
MISC
ANTICIPATORY
BAIL
APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No.
4588 of 2022 and the applicant was granted
fifteen days' time to get the non-bailable
warrants issued against him cancelled vide
order dated 13.6.2022 and the anticipatory
bail application was disposed of. Learned
counsel has stated that the non-bailable
warrants issued against the applicant were
cancelled by the C.J.M. Moradabad vide
order dated 17.6.2022. Thereupon, the
applicant moved the third anticipatory bail
application No. 5746 of 2022, which was
also finally disposed of by this Court vide
order dated 1.7.2022 thereby granting
fifteen days' time to the applicant to appear
before the trial court and it was directed
that the bail application of the applicant
shall be considered and decided in view of
the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil
vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and
another and Puran Singh and others vs.
State of U.P. and others vide order dated
1.7.2022.

6. In compliance of the order dated
1.7.2022
the
applicant
moved
an
application for regular bail as well as for
interim bail before the Additional Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Court
No.
4,
Moradabad,
on
12.7.2022.
Learned
A.C.J.M. had declined to hear the regular
bail application of the applicant without
taking the applicant into custody vide order
dated 14.7.2020 and had rejected the
interim bail application of the applicant.
Learned Court has opined that although in
432 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the present matter, the sentence is below
seven years but seeing the peculiar facts of
the case that the offence is against women,
it does not come within the category of
normal crime and is serious in nature. As
such, the bail application cannot be
disposed of without taking the applicant in
judicial custody.

7. Learned counsel has also stated that
the Apex Court has not classified the cases
on the basis of gender in the judgement of
Satender Kumar Antil (supra). Learned
counsel has further placed reliance on the
order of the Apex Court passed in Satender
Kumar Antil dated 21.3.2023 whereby it
had expressed displeasure over the noncompliance of the said order.

8. Learned counsel has also stated that
the informant herein is a practicing
advocate at District Court, Moradabad and
is hell bent on getting the applicant send
behind the bars somehow or the other and it
is under her duress that the learned
Magistrate has passed the said order dated
14.7.2022. It was also highlighted that the
bailable warrants were issued against the
applicant on 19.4.2022 and the learned
Magistrate issued non-bailable warrants on
20.4.2022. Learned counsel has next stated
that the applicant is a lecturer at Rishikul
Brahmcharya
Sanskrit
Mahavidyalaya,
Katghar Moradabad and had purchased the
present house in the year 2019. There is a
dispute between the parties over the
disposal of garbage etc. an altercation has
taken place between the parties on
7.10.2020. It is also argued that the
applicant had called the police by dialing
112 at the spot. However, on the
interference of the reputed persons of the
locality, the compromise was entered into
between the parties the same day on
7.10.2020 itself, which has been filed as
Annexure-14 to the affidavit.

9. Learned counsel has next stated
that the applicant has preferred a contempt
petition against the non-compliance of the
order of this Court dated 01.07.2022 before
this Court vide Contempt Application No.
4552 of 2022 in which the Court has called
instructions vide order dated 8.8.2021 and
the petition is still pending.

10. Learned counsel has also stated
that the applicant had also challenged the
judicial order dated 14.7.2022 passed by
the Magistrate before the Session Judge,
Moradabad by filing criminal revision no.
211 of 2022 which was rejected by the
Additional Session Judge, Court No. 1,
Moradabad vide order dated 30.1.2023.

11. Learned counsel has next stated
that after the rejection of the said criminal
revision, the applicant again approached
the Session Judge, Moradabad, seeking the
anticipatory bail, but has rejected the same
vide order dated 14.3.2023. Learned
counsel
has
next
stated
that
the
fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21
of the Constitution of India stands violated
as he has been subjected to litigation by the
informant, who is an advocate.

12. Learned counsel has further stated
that the statement of the informant and her
daughter are contradictory to the FIR, thus,
the prosecution story stands falsified.
Learned counsel has next stated that the
statement of the victim under Section 164
Cr.P.C. has been recorded after an
inordinate delay of 45 days of the alleged
incident. The said statement has been
recorded after legal consultation and
deliberations.
5 All. Alok Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P.
433

13. Learned counsel has also stated
that the applicant is a lecturer in a degree
college and has an unblemished record
having no criminal history to his credit.
The
applicant
has
not
misused
the
anticipatory bail granted by this Court vide
order dated 19.2.2021 till the submission of
report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and has
co-operated during investigation and is
ready to do so during trial also.

Case Laws referred to by the
Counsel for the Applicant:

(i) Satender Kumar Antil (supra)

(ii) Criminal Misc. Anticipatory
Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.
2553 of 2022 order dated 12.5.2022,
whereby it was opined that the C.J.M.
Bijnor has not complied with the mandate
of the law laid down in Satender Kumar
Antil (supra), as such, he shall dispose of
the bail application without taking the
applicants to judicial custody.

(iii) In Chandmal vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and Another it has been
held as under:-

"6. We are not also be able to
appreciate the impugned order dated
24.1.2022 passed by the High Court calling
upon the appellants, despite recognizing
the fact that they are aged persons in their
70s and the alleged offences has a
maximum punishment up to seven years,
they have been called upon to surrender in
the Court concerned.

(iv)
In
Criminal
Misc.
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 438
Cr.P.C. No. 3532 of 2022, Suresh Babu vs.
State of U.P. and Another, the proceedings
under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. were
undertaken during the pendency of the
anticipatory
bail
application
and
the
investigation was going on, as such, the
anticipatory
bail
application
of
the
applicants was allowed.

Arguments for the Informant and
the State:

14. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the
informant and learned A.G.A. for the State
have vehemently opposed the anticipatory
bail on the ground that the applicant had
relinquished all his rights already as this is
the fourth anticipatory bail application. The
applicant had even moved a regular bail
application
before
the
Magistrate
concerned and the learned Magistrate has
declined to hear the bail application
without taking him into custody.

15. Learned counsel has further stated
that the judgement of the Apex Court
passed in Satender Kumar Antil (supra)
has used the word "may" and not "shall".
The Apex Court has left it to the discretion
of the Court concerned to take him to
custody or not. Learned counsel has next
stated that the applicant and other coaccused persons had filed an Application
u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 24115 of 2021 and the
same was dismissed vide order dated
8.3.2022. The substantial period of time has
elapsed since the disposal of the said
petition filed by the applicant. Learned
counsel has also stated that the learned trial
court has issued notice against the applicant
u/s 82 Cr.P.C. on 15.3.2023 while the
present anticipatory bail application has
been filed on 21.3.2023 before this Court,
as such, the applicant is not entitled for
anticipatory bail in light of the judgement
of the Apex Court passed in Lavesh vs.
State (NCT of Delhi), whereby it is opined
that the accused is not entitled for
anticipatory bail after the proclamation u/s
482 Cr.PC. has been made.
434 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

16. Learned counsel has placed
reliance on the judgement of this Court
passed in Shivam Vs. State of U.P.,
whereby it is held that if the applicant has
agitated the provisions of Section 482
Cr.P.C. and has failed, he cannot be
enlarged on anticipatory bail. Learned
counsel has next stated that the applicant
and co-accused persons have outraged the
modesty of two women and had even torn
off the clothes of the informant. The said
allegations stand fortified by the statements
of the informant and the victim recorded
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The other coaccused have not been enlarged on
anticipatory bail, rather they have been
enlarged on regular bail by Session Judge,
Moradabad vide order dated 4.5.2022. The
applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail
as he is used to filing several applications
at various forums and has delayed the trial
since 2020. He is not cooperating and the
matter is pending since last three years.

Conclusion:

17. The prosecution story as alleged
in the FIR stands fortified by the fact that
the FIR has been instituted by an order of
the SSP, Moradabad. The applicant has
already agitated the provisions of Section
482 Cr.P.C. and has failed that too on
8.3.2022. Much water has fallen down the
Ganges since then and it is the applicant,
who has stalled the trial at one pretext or
the other by moving several applications
and this is the fourth anticipatory bail
application. The proceedings under Section
82 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against the
applicant.

18. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and also the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for
the
parties,
and
taking
into
consideration the judgement of Lavesh
(supra) and Shivam (supra) and also the
fact that the applicant was refused the
protection u/s 438 Cr.P.C. twice, this Court
finds that the arguments tendered at bar
pertain to regular bail application and
cannot be agitated u/s 438 Cr.P.C.,
therefore, I do not find it a fit case for
granting the anticipatory bail to the
applicant.

19. In view of the above, the present
anticipatory bail application is rejected.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 434
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 10336 of 2022

Rajesh ...Applicant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Vijay Tripathi, Sri Ajay Pratap Singh, Sri
Prem Shankar, Sri Shailja Kant Tripathi, Sri
Utkarsh Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Sri Rajendra Kumar Srivastava

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 - 3⁄4
POCSO Act-victim in her statement both
under section 161 and 164 Cr.PC has
made serious allegation of rape against
the
victim-After
investigation
charge
sheet has been submitted u/s 376AB of
IPC and presumption u/s 29 of the POCSO
Act shall also be drawn against the
applicant-allegation of the prosecution is
not supported by the medical examination