# Bhagat Singh v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2022) 12 ILRA 582
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-29
- **Case number:** Appl. U/s 482 No. 27731 of 2022
- **Bench:** Karunesh Singh Pawar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhagat-singh-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-47940
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Law
-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 323, 308, 452,
506-Quashing
of-accused
granted
anticipatory bail by HC-trial court insisted
for
a
regular
bail-accused
filed
an
application to treat the anticipatory bail
granted by HC as a regular bail but the
same was rejected by trial court stating
that the anticipatory bail was granted till
the
submission
of
charge
sheet-the
categorical
conditions
provided
while
granting anticipatory bail, it was explicitly
clear that the anticipatory bail granted by
HC shall extend till conclusion of the trialThus, the order passed by the trial court is
perverse and contrary to law-It is settled
law passed by Apex Court that the
anticipatory bail order can continue till the
end of the trial unless there are some
special or peculiar features necessitating
the
court
to
limit
the
tenure
of
anticipatory bail.(Para 1 to 10)

The application is disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

Sushila Aggarwal & ors. Vs St. (NCT of Delhi) &
ors. (2020) 5 SCC 1

## Text

582 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for quashing the impugned summoning
order as well as entire proceedings of the
aforesaid case.

83. Accordingly, the summoning
order
dated
07.03.2022
passed
by
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No.1, District-Bijnor as well as the entire
proceedings of F.R. Case No.63/2021
(Misc. Case No.87/2022) (Pramod Kumar
Baliyan vs. Praveen Singh and others),
arising out of Case Crime No.419/2021,
under Sections 326, 307, 323, 324, 504,
506, 120B IPC, Police Station-Haldaur,
District-Bijnor are hereby quashed.

84. The present application under
Section
482
Cr.P.C.
is,
accordingly,
allowed. There shall be no order as to
costs.

85. A copy of this order be certified to
the lower court forthwith.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 582
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Appl. U/s 482 No. 27731 of 2022

Bhagat Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
G.A.

A.
Criminal
Law
-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 323, 308, 452,
506-Quashing
of-accused
granted
anticipatory bail by HC-trial court insisted
for
a
regular
bail-accused
filed
an
application to treat the anticipatory bail
granted by HC as a regular bail but the
same was rejected by trial court stating
that the anticipatory bail was granted till
the
submission
of
charge
sheet-the
categorical
conditions
provided
while
granting anticipatory bail, it was explicitly
clear that the anticipatory bail granted by
HC shall extend till conclusion of the trialThus, the order passed by the trial court is
perverse and contrary to law-It is settled
law passed by Apex Court that the
anticipatory bail order can continue till the
end of the trial unless there are some
special or peculiar features necessitating
the
court
to
limit
the
tenure
of
anticipatory bail.(Para 1 to 10)

The application is disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

Sushila Aggarwal & ors. Vs St. (NCT of Delhi) &
ors. (2020) 5 SCC 1
(Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh
Pawar, J.)

1.

Heard
learned
counsel
for
petitioner as well as learned Additional
Government Advocate for State Mr. M.P.S.
Gaur.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application
has been filed to quash the impugned order
dated 13.7.2022, passed by Civil Judge
(Junior Division)/F.T.C.-I, Gautam Budh
Nagar in case No.100 of 2020, arising out
of case crime No.18/2020 under sections
323, 308, 452, 506 I.P.C., PS. Ecotech-Ist,
district Gautam Budh Nagar (State vs.
Bhagat Singh).

3. Learned counsel for applicant
submits that the applicant is an accused in
case crime No.18/2020 under sections 323,
12 All. Bhagat Singh Vs. State of U.P.
583
308, 452, 506 I.P.C., PS. Ecotech-Ist,
district Gautam Budh Nagar. He filed an
anticipatory bail application No.2289 of
2020 before this Court, in which a
Coordinate Bench of this court has, vide
order dated 17.3.2020, directed release of
the applicant on anticipatory bail, in the
event of arrest, with certain conditions.

4. It is submitted that although the
applicant was released on anticipatory bail
by this Court, the trial court is insisting for
a regular bail and therefore, he filed an
application before the trial court to treat the
anticipatory bail granted by this Court as a
regular bail. However, the trial court vide
order under challenge has rejected the
prayer of the applicant and held that the
anticipatory
bail
was
granted
till
submission of charge sheet. It is submitted
that the order of the trial court is perverse
and contrary to the order passed by this
Court.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the
petition.

6. For ready reference, order dated
17.3.2020 (supra) is extracted below :

" Vakalatnama filed by Sri Pandey
Balkrishna, Advocate on behalf of opposite
party no.2 is taken on record.

Heard Sri Vinay Prakash Shukla and
Sri Durga Prasad Tiwari, learned counsels
for the applicant, Sri Pandey Balkrishna,
learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as
well as learned A.G.A. appearing for the
State and perused the averments made in
the first information report and rejection
order.

It has been contended by learned
counsel for the applicant that the applicant
has been falsely implicated in this case by
the first informant on account of personal
grudge and enmity. In Para 15 of the
affidavit, it is stated that the wife of
applicant's younger brother had an affair
with the brother of first informant and had
solemnized second marriage with him.
Thereafter, she was claiming her share in
the property of her husband which is the
bone of contention between the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicant states
that according to F.I.R. four persons are
stated to have assaulted the injured by lathi
and danda, however, the injured sustained
three local injuries on the face which was
subjected to X-ray. Prima facie, offence
under Section 308 I.P.C. is not made out
against the applicant. The applicant is ready
to cooperate with the investigation. The
matter needs deeper and fairer investigation
before any arrest should be given effect to.
Therefore,
the
applicant,
having
no
criminal antecedents to his credit, may be
enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as
learned counsel for the informant have
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and
submitted that the applicant and other
accused had badly assaulted an aged man
of 80 years old who had sustained some
fracture on his face, however, could not
place
any
supplementary
report
or
document to show that there was any
likelihood of the death of the injured. He
has also not disputed the averments made
in Para 15 of the affidavit. Learned A.G.A.
has also borrowed the arguments made by
learned counsel for the informant.

Be that as it may, without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case,
considering the nature of accusation and
the fact that he has no criminal antecedents,
the applicant is entitled to be released on
anticipatory bail in this case.

In the event of arrest of the applicant-
Bhagat Singh involved in Case Crime No.
0018 of 2020, under Sections 323, 452,
584 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
308, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Eco Tech1st, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, he shall
be released on anticipatory bail on his
furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-
with two sureties each in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the Station House Officer
of the police station concerned with the
following conditions:-

1) that the applicant shall make
himself available for interrogation by a
police officer as and when required;

2) that 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 him
from disclosing such facts to the court or
to any police officer or tamper with the
evidence;

3) that the applicant shall not leave
India without the previous permission of
the court;

4) that in default of any of the
conditions
mentioned
above,
the
investigating officer shall be at liberty to
file
appropriate
application
for
cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to
the applicant;

5) that the investigating officer is
directed to conclude the investigation in
the present case in accordance with law
expeditiously, preferably, within a period
of four months from the date of production
of
a
certified
copy
of
this
order
independently without being prejudiced by
any observation made by this court while
considering or deciding the present bail
application of the applicant;

6) that the applicant is directed to
produce certified copy of this order before
the SSP/SP concerned forthwith, who shall
ensure the compliance of the present
order;

7) that in case charge-sheet is
submitted the applicant shall not tamper
with the evidence during the trial;

8)
that
the
applicantshall
not
pressurize/
intimidate
te
prosecution
witness

9) that the applicant shall appear
before the trial court on each date fixed
unless personal presence is exempted;

10) that in case of breach of any of the
above conditions the court below shall have
the liberty to cancel the bail;

It is made clear that if the charge-sheet
is submitted and cognizance is taken and
matter is committed to the Court of
Sessions, as the case may be, the trial court
shall decide the trial preferably within a
period
of
one
year
from
the
cognizance/committal of the case to the
Court of Sessions.

In view of aforesaid, the present
Criminal
Misc.
Anticipatory
Bail
Application is, accordingly, allowed."

7. A perusal of condition No.2 of the
bail order depicts that a condition has been
imposed on the applicant that he 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 him from disclosing such
facts to the court or to any police officer or
tamper with the evidence. Further, as per
condition No.8, the applicant has been
directed not to pressurise/ intimidate the
prosecution witness. Vide condition No.9,
the applicant has been directed to appear
before the trial court on each date fixed
unless personal presence is exempted.
Lastly, the trial court has been given liberty
to cancel bail in case of breach of any of
nine conditions mentioned in the bail order.

8. In view of the categorical
conditions
provided
while
granting
anticipatory bail to the applicant, it is
explicitly clear that the anticipatory bail
granted by this Curt vide aforesaid order
12 All. Shyam Sunder Prasad Vs. C.B.I., Lko.
585
extends till
conclusion of the trial.
Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the
application of the accused vide order under
challenge without even giving any reason is
perverse and liable to be set aside.

9. Even otherwise, law in this regard
is settled. Supreme Court in Sushila
Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) and others (2020)5 SCC 1 has held
that the anticipatory bail order can continue
till the end of the trial, unless there are
some
special
or
peculiar
features
necessitating the court to limit the tenure of
anticipatory bail. Relevant para 91.2 is
extracted below :

"91.2 : As regards the second question
referred to this court, it is held that the life
or duration of an anticipatory bail order
does not end normally at the time and stage
when the accused is summoned by the
court, or when charges are framed, but can
continue till the end of the trial. Again, if
there are any special or peculiar features
necessitating the court to limit the tenure of
anticipatory bail, it is open for it to do so."

10. In view of the above, the
impugned order dated 13.7.2022 (supra) is
set aside. The matter is remanded back to
the court below to pass a fresh order in the
light of the observation made above and the
law settled by the Supreme Court in the
case of Sushila Aggarwal's case (supra).

11. The petition is disposed of.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 585
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
Crl. Revision No. 921 of 2022

Shyam Sunder Prasad ...Revisionist
Versus
C.B.I., Lko. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Dhananjay Singh

Counsel for the Opp. Party
Shiv P. Shukla

A.
Criminal
Law
-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 397/401 , 311 -
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -
Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)-Challenge
to-summoning order u/s 311-revisionist
(Branch Manager) asked for bribe for defreezing complainant's account-a trap was
laid by CBI team and the revisionist was
caught red handed with tainted bribe
cheque -CFSL report was prepared by one
Senior
Scientific
Officer-CBI
filed
application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. to allow
substitute Senior Scientific Officer as
prosecution witness in place of earlier
officer
as
she
is
residing
abroadrevisionist filed objection that substitute
voice examiner could not be examinedtrial court rejected the objection and
allowed the application-Section 293(3)
Cr.P.C. provides that if such an expert is
unable to attend personally, any other
responsible officer working with him may
be deputed to attend the court-When the
opinion of expert u/s 45A of Indian
Evidence Act is admitted by trial, it
becomes the opinion of the Court-Hence,
impugned order requires no interference.
(Para 1 to 26)

B. When the Court has to form and opinion
upon a point of foreign law or of science
or art or fingerprints, handwriting, the
opinions upon that point of persons
specially skilled in such foreign law,
science or art are relevant facts. Such
persons are called experts(section 45 of
Evidence Act)

C. When in any proceeding, the court has
to form an opinion on any matter relating