# Atul Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 1055 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-07-14 - **Bench:** Karuna Nand Bajpayee - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/atul-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44044 - **Pages:** 5 ## Headnote This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of orders dated 1.6.2016 and 14.6.2016.The perusal of the both these orders show that some order passed previously has been reiterated and the court has observed that the accused may be summoned according to the orders as were passed before. But what are the previous orders and what orders was passed on previous occasion is not known. The previous order which has been reiterated has not been annexed along with this application. So far as the present orders which have been impugned are concerned they seem to be just routine orders passed in order to summon the accused who has not yet obtained bail. If the charge sheet has been submitted and accused does not appear before the court then such kind of orders are routine orders which are to be passed in order to summon the accused so that further procedure in accordance with law may take place and the process of 1056 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES trial may begin. It was specifically asked from the counsel and he has been fair enough to concede that the accused have not yet appeared or surrendered before the court and have not sought their bail as yet. During the course of the submission made by the counsel though he could not substantiate his submissions by any document but the point which he tried to make was this that on an earlier occasion the applicants had approached this court by way of filing an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. whereby the order issuing non bailable warrant was challenged. After hearing on this application the court did not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the same and therefore had dismissed that application. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case a direction was given to the applicants to appear and surrender and seek their bail within two months from date 3.5.2016 and seek their bail which was to be decided in accordance with law. It was also observed by this court that in the aforesaid period of two months or till the date of appearance of accused in the court below whichever is earlier no coercive measures shall be adopted. It has been submitted by the counsel for the applicant that though the applicant has not availed this order dated 3.5.2016 and has chosen not to appear before the court below and obtain bail but as the warrants had been stayed by this court vide its order dated 3.5.2016 the court below should not have repeated or reiterated the previous orders of issuing warrant against the applicants. Submission is that the previous orders which have been repeated in the two impugned orders are nothing but the orders by way of which the non bailable warrants had been issued on the previous occasion by court below. Further it has been submitted that for certain reasons though the applicants could not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period of time as was directed by this court vide its order dated 3.5.2016 but now they intend to appear in the court and so a protective direction in this regard may be once again given to them. It is hoped that the applicants shall keep it in mind that the solemn jurisdiction of this court is not meant to be misutilised in order to find ways and means to somehow evade the process of law under the garb of some judicial order. Protective directions granted by this court are in the nature of a benevolent exercise of its judicial power intending to safeguard the constitutional rights of individual liberty which are sacrosanct in the view of this court. This Court in order to meet the ends of justice exercises its inherent jurisdiction and ungrudgingly comes forward in appropriate cases to extend its facilitating arm to the accused so that he may submit to the jurisdiction of the court without being harassed by any kind of executive high handedness of the police. But this judicial magnanimity must not be mistaken or misunderstood to be a ploy which can ever be ## Text 7 All. Atul Singh & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 1055 local police reveals substantive material against the accused-applicant, who despite being a government servant posted as Bandi Rakshak in District Jail Mathura, joined hands with hard core criminals and covertly facilitated the perpetration of this highly orchestrated crime committed on 17.01.2015 within the premise of District Jail, Mathura and outside. Contention therefore is that the involvement of accused-applicant in such a serious and heinous offence dis-entitles him from the relief of granting bail and hence, his bail application is liable to be rejected. 5. Perused the record along with the case diary produced by learned A.G.A. in the light of submissions placed by the rival sides. 6. Looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicant is rejected. 7. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J. Application U/s 482 No.- 20401 Of 2016 Atul Singh & Ors. ...Applicants Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite parties Counsel for the Applicants: Sunil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Parties: G.A. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of orders dated 1.6.2016 and 14.6.2016.The perusal of the both these orders show that some order passed previously has been reiterated and the court has observed that the accused may be summoned according to the orders as were passed before. But what are the previous orders and what orders was passed on previous occasion is not known. The previous order which has been reiterated has not been annexed along with this application. So far as the present orders which have been impugned are concerned they seem to be just routine orders passed in order to summon the accused who has not yet obtained bail. If the charge sheet has been submitted and accused does not appear before the court then such kind of orders are routine orders which are to be passed in order to summon the accused so that further procedure in accordance with law may take place and the process of 1056 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES trial may begin. It was specifically asked from the counsel and he has been fair enough to concede that the accused have not yet appeared or surrendered before the court and have not sought their bail as yet. During the course of the submission made by the counsel though he could not substantiate his submissions by any document but the point which he tried to make was this that on an earlier occasion the applicants had approached this court by way of filing an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. whereby the order issuing non bailable warrant was challenged. After hearing on this application the court did not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the same and therefore had dismissed that application. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case a direction was given to the applicants to appear and surrender and seek their bail within two months from date 3.5.2016 and seek their bail which was to be decided in accordance with law. It was also observed by this court that in the aforesaid period of two months or till the date of appearance of accused in the court below whichever is earlier no coercive measures shall be adopted. It has been submitted by the counsel for the applicant that though the applicant has not availed this order dated 3.5.2016 and has chosen not to appear before the court below and obtain bail but as the warrants had been stayed by this court vide its order dated 3.5.2016 the court below should not have repeated or reiterated the previous orders of issuing warrant against the applicants. Submission is that the previous orders which have been repeated in the two impugned orders are nothing but the orders by way of which the non bailable warrants had been issued on the previous occasion by court below. Further it has been submitted that for certain reasons though the applicants could not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period of time as was directed by this court vide its order dated 3.5.2016 but now they intend to appear in the court and so a protective direction in this regard may be once again given to them. It is hoped that the applicants shall keep it in mind that the solemn jurisdiction of this court is not meant to be misutilised in order to find ways and means to somehow evade the process of law under the garb of some judicial order. Protective directions granted by this court are in the nature of a benevolent exercise of its judicial power intending to safeguard the constitutional rights of individual liberty which are sacrosanct in the view of this court. This Court in order to meet the ends of justice exercises its inherent jurisdiction and ungrudgingly comes forward in appropriate cases to extend its facilitating arm to the accused so that he may submit to the jurisdiction of the court without being harassed by any kind of executive high handedness of the police. But this judicial magnanimity must not be mistaken or misunderstood to be a ploy which can ever be allowed to be abused as a method to gain time and keep fleeing from justice. For any such unscrupulous accused the law courts have enough powers and strong arms to catch them and be brought to justice. Held: Para- Case Law discussed: (Delivered by Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.) 1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri R.P.S. Chauhan Advocate and Sri Pushpa Raj Singh Advocate on behalf of respondent no.2 is taken on record. 2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of orders dated 1.6.2016 and 14.6.2016 in Case No. 442 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No.155 of 2012 State of U.P. Vs. Achal Singh and others u/s 395, 427, 506 IPC P.S. Auang district Fatehpur pending in the Court of ACJM Court no.10, District Fatehpur. 3. Heard applicants' counsel as well as the counsel for the opp.party no.2 and learned AGA. 7 All. Atul Singh & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 1057 4. Entire record has been perused. 5. Two orders impugned before the court are dated 1.6.2016 and 14.6.2016. The perusal of the both these orders show that some order passed previously has been reiterated and the court has observed that the accused may be summoned according to the orders as were passed before. But what are the previous orders and what orders was passed on previous occasion is not known. The previous order which has been reiterated has not been annexed along with this application. So far as the present orders which have been impugned are concerned they seem to be just routine orders passed in order to summon the accused who has not yet obtained bail. If the charge sheet has been submitted and accused does not appear before the court then such kind of orders are routine orders which are to be passed in order to summon the accused so that further procedure in accordance with law may take place and the process of trial may begin. It was specifically asked from the counsel and he has been fair enough to concede that the accused have not yet appeared or surrendered before the court and have not sought their bail as yet. During the course of the submission made by the counsel though he could not substantiate his submissions by any document but the point which he tried to make was this that on an earlier occasion the applicants had approached this court by way of filing an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. whereby the order issuing non bailable warrant was challenged. After hearing on this application the court did not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the same and therefore had dismissed that application. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case a direction was given to the applicants to appear and surrender and seek their bail within two months from date 3.5.2016 and seek their bail which was to be decided in accordance with law. It was also observed by this court that in the aforesaid period of two months or till the date of appearance of accused in the court below whichever is earlier no coercive measures shall be adopted. It has been submitted by the counsel for the applicant that though the applicant has not availed this order dated 3.5.2016 and has chosen not to appear before the court below and obtain bail but as the warrants had been stayed by this court vide its order dated 3.5.2016 the court below should not have repeated or reiterated the previous orders of issuing warrant against the applicants. Submission is that the previous orders which have been repeated in the two impugned orders are nothing but the orders by way of which the non bailable warrants had been issued on the previous occasion by court below. Further it has been submitted that for certain reasons though the applicants could not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period of time as was directed by this court vide its order dated 3.5.2016 but now they intend to appear in the court and so a protective direction in this regard may be once again given to them. 6. I have perused the record in the light of submissions made by the counsel for the parties. 7. As has already been observed that the previous orders of the court which have been repeated by the court below by way of order dated 1.6.2016 and 14.6.2016 have not been annexed along with this application. In any view of the matter even if it is presumed ( as it has not disputed by counsel for opposite party) that the previous orders were of issuing warrant then the maximum that can be said in view of the order dated 3.5.2016 passed by this court is that the coercive measures should not have been initiated. But what is so demonstratively clear is this that in pursuance of the order dated 1.6.2016 and 14.6.2016 the applicants have not been touched by the 1058 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES police and they have not been arrested and coercive process issued against them has just remain unimplemented. What is upsetting to see is that despite the specific direction that was sought from this court the applicants have not appeared before the court and have simply allowed the period of two months after 3.5.2016 to pass over and go by. It is sufficient to demonstrate that the applicants are disinclined to submit to the jurisdiction of the court and by one way or the other are interested only to find ways to evade the process of law. Counsel appearing on behalf of the opp.party no.2 has also shown to the court the order passed by another bench on 8.4.2015 in another application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.8685 of 2015 moved on behalf of applicants. The perusal of this order reveals that by way of that application also the non bailable warrants dated 19.3.2015 passed by the court below were challenged but the High court found the applicants guilty of suppressing the material facts and the Bench was pleased to observe as follows:- "The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants does not appear to be justified particularly because it is the duty of the applicants to place full facts before the court. Once this Court had disposed of the application requiring the applicants to appear before the court concerned, within a specified period, with positive direction that if they do not appear then coercive action would be taken against them, there was no justification for the applicants to remain absent in the proceeding and again come to this Court seeking quashing of non bailable warrant, without disclosing about the earlier order passed by this Court. In view of the above, I consider it appropriate to dismiss the present application with cost of Rs.5,000/-. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. The cost of Rs.5,000/- shall be deposited by the applicants before the Registrar General of this Court within 15 days from today. The amount so deposited shall be transferred to the account of Legal Aid Committee. If the amount is not deposited within 15 days from today, the same shall be recovered from the applicant no.4 (Sriram Singh Chauhan) as arrears of land revenue. " 8. It has been further pointed out by counsel appearing for opp.party that before the aforesaid order the applicants had moved yet another application u/.s 482 Cr.P.C. No.34970 of 2014 seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings going on against the applicants. That application was disposed of with the direction to the applicants to appear before the court below within one month and seek their bail. This order was passed by another bench on 29.8.2014. Contention is that applicants are not law abiding citizens and have no respect for the orders of this court and are simply trying to abuse the process of law at different forums of judicial institution and have no intention to submit to the jurisdiction of the court and therefore they have not yet appeared before the court and have not obtained their bail. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances in the considered opinion of the court there is no justification now to issue another protective direction to accused in order to appear before the court as has already been given on previous occasions more than once which remained unavailed and uncared for. But as the counsel for opposite party has not disputed the fact that the order dated 7 All. Raj Bahadur Vs State Of U.P. 1059 1.6.2016 and 14.6.2016 are the repetition of the previous order which was in the nature of the direction to issue non bailable warrant the aforesaid impugned orders cannot be allowed to stand as coercive process was specifically put in abeyance by way of order passed by this court on 3.5.2016. Therefore, it is deemed proper that the orders dated 1.6.2016 and 14.6.2016 should stand quashed. This court is constrained to pass such order only in order to uphold the Majesty of this court and remind the court below to be more careful in future and ensure that the direction issued by the court must be adhered to. 10. But as the applicants have not surrendered before the court as yet and have not obtained their bail despite ample opportunity having been given to them, the court below shall be at liberty to issue fresh warrants or any coercive measures against the applicants as it may deem fit in order to procure the attendance of the applicants-accused. 11. With the aforesaid observations this application is disposed of. 12. It is hoped that the applicants shall keep it in mind that the solemn jurisdiction of this court is not meant to be misutilised in order to find ways and means to somehow evade the process of law under the garb of some judicial order. Protective directions granted by this court are in the nature of a benevolent exercise of its judicial power intending to safeguard the constitutional rights of individual liberty which are sacrosanct in the view of this court. This Court in order to meet the ends of justice exercises its inherent jurisdiction and ungrudgingly comes forward in appropriate cases to extend its facilitating arm to the accused so that he may submit to the jurisdiction of the court without being harassed by any kind of executive high handedness of the police. But this judicial magnanimity must not be mistaken or misunderstood to be a ploy which can ever be allowed to be abused as a method to gain time and keep fleeing from justice. For any such unscrupulous accused the law courts have enough powers and strong arms to catch them and be brought to justice. ----------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.- 21062 Of 2015 Raj Bahadur ...Applicant Versus State Of U.P. ...Opposite Party Counsel for Applicant: D.P. Singh, Rajiv Dwivedi, Shanker Suan