# Chaudhary Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. Opp.Parties

- **Citation:** (2023) 3 ILRA 800
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-10-11
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 7977 of 2021
- **Bench:** Krishan Pahal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chaudhary-pratap-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-opp-parties-49235
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 438-Indian Penal
Code, 1860-Sections 323 & 376-D-the
applicant is said to have promised the
3 All. Chaudhary Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
801
complainant to get her a nice job-When
she met with the applicant he committed
rape
with
two
persons-NBW
and
proceedings u/s 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. are
already complete and the applicant is
having criminal antecedents to his creditThe allegations are of serious nature-The
case law of Bhajan Lal do not apply to the
present case-The applicant had agitated
the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
twice at High Court but failed, the same is
not disclosed by the applicant in the
anticipatory bail application-applicant has
not come with clean hands-The applicant
failed to consider the requirements of law
of
investigation

and
also
the
consideration made by the Apex Court in
various judgments in this regard.(Para 1
to 17)

The bail application is rejected. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

Shivam Vs. St. of U.P. & anr.. (2021) AirOnline
All 484

## Text

800 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
him under Section 229-A of the Indian
Penal Code.

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the
liberty of bail during trial and in order to
secure his presence proclamation under
Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the
applicant fails to appear before the court on
the date fixed in such proclamation, then
the trial court shall initiate proceedings
against him, in accordance with law, under
Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv)
The
applicant
shall
remain
present, in person, before the trial court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case,
(ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in
the opinion of the trial court absence of the
applicant is deliberate or without sufficient
cause, then it shall be open for the trial
court to treat such default as abuse of
liberty of bail and proceed against him in
accordance with law.

8. It is made clear that the
observations made in this order are limited
to the purpose of determination of this bail
application and will in no way be construed
as an expression on the merits of the case.
The Trial Court shall be absolutely free to
arrive at its independent conclusions on the
basis of evidence led unaffected by
anything in this order.

9. At this stage, it is to be noted that
from perusal of the injury report, it is
appears that the injuries mentioned in the
report are illegible and the prosecution side
as well as the applicant side faces difficulty
while going through the injury report.

10. The Court is of the opinion that in
future postmortem report or injury report
prepared by the doctor should be in typed
format and legible, so that the same can be
read easily. Therefore, I direct the Principal
Secretary, Medical Health and Family
Welfare Government of U.P. Lucknow to
issue a proper direction to all the Chief
Medical Officers of the District that
postmortem report as well as injury report
will be transcribed in typed format.

11. The Senior Registrar of this Court
is directed to forward a copy of this order
to the Principal Secretary, Medical Health
and Family Welfare Government of U.P.
Lucknow
forthwith
for
necessary
compliance.

12. This case shall be listed for
monitoring after two months as to what
action has been taken in pursuance of
directions issued by this Court.

13. List this case on 25.05.2023.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 800
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 7977
of 2021
(U/s 438 Cr.P.C.)

Chaudhary Pratap Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp.Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Amit Daga

Counsel for the Opp.Parties:
G.A., Sri Akhilesh Mishra, Sri Anshuman Vidhu
Chandra, Sri Mehul Khare, Sri Jagdev Singh

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 438-Indian Penal
Code, 1860-Sections 323 & 376-D-the
applicant is said to have promised the
3 All. Chaudhary Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
801
complainant to get her a nice job-When
she met with the applicant he committed
rape
with
two
persons-NBW
and
proceedings u/s 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. are
already complete and the applicant is
having criminal antecedents to his creditThe allegations are of serious nature-The
case law of Bhajan Lal do not apply to the
present case-The applicant had agitated
the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
twice at High Court but failed, the same is
not disclosed by the applicant in the
anticipatory bail application-applicant has
not come with clean hands-The applicant
failed to consider the requirements of law
of
investigation

and
also
the
consideration made by the Apex Court in
various judgments in this regard.(Para 1
to 17)

The bail application is rejected. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

Shivam Vs. St. of U.P. & anr.. (2021) AirOnline
All 484
(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned
counsel for the applicant, Sri Mehul Khare,
learned counsel for the complainant and Sri
Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for
the State as well as perused the record.

2. The present application has been
moved
seeking
anticipatory
bail
in
Criminal Complaint Case no. 1407 of 2018,
under Sections 323, 376-D IPC, Police
Station- Bhopa, District- Muzaffarnagar,
with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on
anticipatory bail.

PROSECUTION STORY:-

3. The complainant Smt. Sangeeta Kaur
W/o Dulli Singh had filed a complaint
before
the
Magistrate
concerned
on
16.11.2016 with the allegation that the
complainant is a dalit lady and she was
very well conversant with the family of
Sushil Chaudhary S/o Dharmveer Singh.
The said Sushil is said to have introduced
the complainant to one Pratap Singh
(applicant) S/o Govind Singh of District
Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand. It was
told to the complainant that the applicant is
the Chairman of Urban Bank Kashipur and
also the Manager of Kisan Inter College,
Kundeshwari, District Udham Singh Nagar,
Uttarakhand and the applicant is said to
have promised the complainant to get her a
nice job. On 24.9.2016 the said Sushil
Chaudhary told the husband of complainant
that on 25.9.2016 his relative had to come
to Morna, Muzaffar Nagar for some
personal work. The complainant is said to
have reached the Morna Petrol Pump,
Muzaffar Nagar, at 12 noon of 25.9.2016.
The applicant is said to have come by car
No. UK 18 6677 alongwith Sushil and one
Deepak of Gurgaon. The husband of
complainant is said to have left for his
house leaving her behind. The complainant
accompanied the applicant and the said
persons in their car towards Shukrtaal,
Muzaffar Nagar. The applicant and his
colleagues got drunk on the way. The
applicant
is
said
to
have
started
misbehaving with the complainant. On her
protest, she was beaten up and abused and
all the aforesaid persons are said to have
committed gang rape with her. The
applicant is said to have video recorded the
same in his mobile. After the said act the
complainant is said to have been thrown at
Partapur byepass, Meerut. After reaching
her house, the complainant informed her
husband about the incident, who went to
the police station the next day but the
police did not take any action whatsoever.
The complaint case was filed as such.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS:-
802 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
has stated that the niece of the applicant
namely, Priyanka D/o Lalit Kumar had
solemnized a love marriage with one Vipul
Kumar many years ago. The applicant had
opposed the said love marriage of his niece
Priyanka. With the passage of time, the
brother of the applicant i.e. father of
Priyanka accepted the said love marriage of
his daughter and his relations with her
husband Vipul Kumar became cordial
thereon. Learned counsel has further stated
that the said Vipul Kumar, husband of his
niece is having criminal antecedents as in
all, nine cases are pending against him at
various places in West UP and Udham
Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand. The said son-inlaw, Vipul Kumar, tried his best to grab the
ancestral property of the applicant and his
brothers. Learned counsel has further stated
that the aforesaid complaint has been filed
at the behest of the said niece and her
husband Vipul Kumar just to pressurize the
applicant, so that he may not hinder them in
getting the property of the applicant
transferred to him.

5. Learned counsel has further stated
that the complainant herein had moved an
application alongwith the affidavit before
the trial court on 20.4.2017 to not to
proceed against the accused applicant as
the person who had committed rape with
her was some other person with the same
name Pratap Singh. The said application is
annexed as Annexure-12 to the affidavit.
Learned counsel has further stated that the
complainant and her husband Dulli Singh
had moved an application supported with
the affidavit before the trial court on
17.1.2018 stating therein that the statement
of the complainant recorded under Section
164 Cr.P.C. on record of the trial court is
false as the same has been recorded at the
instance of Priyanka and her husband
Vipul. The said application is annexed as
Annexure No. 16 to the affidavit.

6. Learned counsel has further stated
that the complainant had further moved an
application before the trial court on
22.1.2018 to close the proceedings of
complaint case against all the accused
persons by rejecting the summoning order.
Learned counsel has further stated that the
complainant again moved an application
before the trial court on 7.2.2018 for
providing police security as she felt danger
to her life.

7. Learned counsel has further stated
that the trial court on 3.8.2018 had passed
an order asking the complainant to issue
process against each accused person as she
had
levelled
allegations
against
two
different persons with same name Pratap
Singh. The said order of the trial court was
challenged by the complainant before the
revisional court in Criminal Revision No.
245 of 2018 and the same was dismissed on
merits.

8. Learned counsel has stated that the
trial court has issued non-bailable warrant
against the applicant and other accused
persons on 2.3.2021 without giving any
cogent reasons for it.

9. Learned counsel has submitted that
the applicant had lodged an FIR at police
station, Kashipur District Udham Singh
Nagar, Uttarakhand under Sections 386,
388, 389 and 120-B IPC against the
complainant and she was arrested as
accused and her statement was recorded
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein the
complainant has categorically stated that
the applicant and Sushil had not committed
any kind of sexual assault with her and a
false case has been filed against them.
3 All. Chaudhary Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
803

10. Learned counsel has further
argued that after thorough investigation, a
charge sheet was submitted against four
accused persons including the complainant.

11. Learned counsel has further
submitted that the complainant herein is used
to filing frivolous FIRs as she had filed an
FIR at P.S. Gajraula, District J.P. Nagar,
under Sections 452, 342, 506 IPC and
3(2)(Va) SC/ST Act at Case Crime No. 169
of 2018. It has been stated that in the said
FIR, a closure report was filed by the police
and even the complainant had filed the
application before the Magistrate concerned
to accept the said closure report which was
accepted by it on 14.7.2018. Another witness
produced in the present complaint case
namely, Sumit Kumar, had also lodged an
FIR No. 273 of 2019, at P.S. Kotwali Mandi,
District Saharanpur under Sections 328 and
506 IPC, in which also, the closure report
was filed and he had filed a protest petition to
the said closure report. Despite the said
protest petition dated 23.11.2020 the court
was pleased to accept the closure report vide
order dated 20.2.2021. Another close friend
of the complainant, Smt. Usha had also filed
an FIR at P.S. Simbhaoli, District Hapur as
FIR No. 308 of 2019 in which the final report
has been submitted before the trial court,
which is pending adjudication. The said Vipul
Kumar had also filed a complaint case against
the applicant in the court of A.C.J.M.-I,
Bijnor on 16.3.2020, which was dismissed
vide order dated 4.3.2021 by the trial court.
Learned counsel has next stated that all the
cases against the applicant have been filed
out of vengeance and the parties are inimical
to each other and there are various cases and
cross cases filed against each other.

12. Learned counsel has next stated
that the applicant has a criminal history of
five cases, which has been explained. He
has placed reliance on the judgements of
the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 577
of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 287
of 2017 and State of Haryana and others
vs. Bhajan Lal and others 1992 Supp (1)
Supreme Court Cases 335.

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the
complainant,
Sri
Mehul
Khare,
has
vehemently opposed the bail application
and has stated that the applicant has not
come with clean hands as he had
challenged the summoning order by filing a
Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 13983 of
2017. The said petition was dismissed by
this Court vide order dated 5.5.2017.

14. Learned counsel has next stated
that another application U/S 482 Cr.P.C.
No. 42944 of 2017 was also filed before the
applicant which was again dismissed.
Learned counsel has further stated that the
applicant had filed a special leave petition
before the Supreme Court which was also
dismissed vide order dated 6.4.2018.

15.

Learned
counsel
for
the
complainant has stated that applicant is a
powerful person of the locality. Learned
counsel has also stated that NBW was
issued against the applicant on 2.3.2021
and the proceedings under Section 82 and
83 Cr.P.C. have been completed against the
applicant. The applicant is not entitled for
anticipatory bail in light of the judgement
of this Court passed in Shivam vs. State of
U.P. and another reported in AirOnline
2021 All 484, and also the fact that the
applicant is having criminal antecedents.
The allegations in FIR are serious in nature.

CONCLUSION:-

16. The aforesaid case is squarely
covered by paragraph 45 of the judgement
804 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of this Court passed in Shivam vs. State of
U.P. and another (supra), as it is an
admitted fact that the applicant had agitated
the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this
Court twice and failed. Paragraph 45 of the
judgement is being quoted hereinbelow:-

"45) When the anticipatory bail is
sought by an accused after submission of
charge-sheet against him, the following
particulars are required to be given in the
anticipatory bail application to arrive at
correct conclusion whether the charge-sheet
submitted
against
the
accused
can
withstand the requirements of law of
investigation as considered above and also
the consideration made by the Apex Court
in various judgements in this regard :-

(i) The charge-sheet along with the
entire
material
collected
by
the
Investigating Officer should be made part
of the anticipatory bail application;

(ii) Clear pleading with reference to
the material on record should be made
stating under which sub-paragraph of
paragraph 41 stated hereinabove, the case
of the applicant is covered;

(iii) Clear pleading should also be
made that the case of the applicant is not
barred
by
paragraph
43
mentioned
aforesaid;

(iv) There should be clear averment in
the affidavit in support of the anticipatory
bail application that the applicant has not
challenged the charge-sheet before this
Court in any proceeding;

(v)
In
case
the
applicant
has
approached this Court by way of any other
proceedings after submission of chargesheet and has obtained any order in any
proceedings, the same shall be disclosed in
the anticipatory bail application; and (vi)
Clear pleading should be made in the
anticipatory bail application that after
submission of charge-sheet, the applicant
has not approached any court and no such
proceeding is pending."

17. The N.B.W. and proceedings
under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. are
already complete and the applicant is
having criminal antecedents to his credit.
The allegations against the applicant are of
serious nature. The case law of Bhajan Lal
(supra) do not apply to the present case.

18. On due consideration to the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for
the parties and considering the nature of
accusations
and
antecedents
of
the
applicant and the case laws produced by
learned counsel for applicant, I do not find
that the applicant is entitled to be released
on anticipatory bail in this case.

19. In view of the above, the
anticipatory
bail
application
of
the
applicant is rejected.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 804
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 9023
of 2022

Dr. Archana Gupta ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Puneet Bhadauria

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Sri Kuldeep Singh Yadav

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
438
-