# Kamlesh Yadav & Anr v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2021) 10 ILRA 19
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-08
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24591 of 2021
- **Bench:** Samit Gopal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kamlesh-yadav-anr-v-state-of-u-p-46243
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 439 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 328, 302application filed mischieviously by person for
the best known reason in the name of Aditya
Narayan Singh Advocate who was died in the
year
2014-application
on
behalf
of
two
applicants filed in a clandestine manner-the
court cannot shut its eye to the said issue-the
present case is a shame litigation-The Registrar
General directed to register First Information
Report for which investigation is needed to be
done seriously so as to cull out the truth and
appropriate action be taken against persons
involved in the bogus and clandestine filing of
bail application.(Para 1 to 16)

The application is disposed of. (E-6)

## Text

10 All. Kamlesh Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
19
submitted that in view of the seriousness of
the allegations made in the F.I.R., the
applicants
are
not
entitled
for
any
relaxation from this Court.

(10) After considering the record of the
case as available before the Court, in the light of
rival submissions made at the Bar and keeping
in view the nature and gravity of the accusation,
antecedents of the applicants, their undertaking
to make themselves available to the authorities
whenever required, the Court feels satisfied that
it would be expedient to grant an order of
anticipatory bail in favour of the applicants.
Thus
instant
Anticipatory
Bail
stands
ALLOWED.

(11) Without expressing any opinion
upon ultimate merits of the case either
ways which may be adversely affect the
investigation and subsequent stage of the
case, the Court directs that in the event of
arrest of the applicants in aforesaid case
crime, they shall be released on bail on
furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-
with two sureties each in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer till
the submission of report u/s 173 (2) Cr.P.C.
by the I.O., with the conditions that :

(i) The applicants shall make
themselves available for the interrogation
by the police as and when required. The
Investigating Officer of the case would give
48 hours prior notice or telephonically
inform the concerned accused-applicant to
remain available to him for the purposes of
interrogation and the accused-applicants
are obliged to abide by such directions.

(ii) The applicants shall not
directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threats or comments to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him from disclosing the correct
facts to the court or to the police officer.

(iii) The Investigating Officer of
the case would make all necessary
endeavour to gear up the investigation in
utmost transparent and professional way
and would try to conclude the same within
a maximum period of 90 days. During this
period the accused-applicants would not
leave the State of Uttar Pradesh without
informing the Investigating Officer of the
case and sharing his contact number.

(iv) In the event the applicants
are having their passports, they will have
to surrender the same before the concerned
SP/SSP of the District till the submission of
report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C.

(12) In the event, the applicants
breach or attempt to breach any of the
aforesaid conditions or willfully violate
above conditions or abstains themselves
from the investigation, it would be open for
the Investigating Officer or the concerned
authority to apply before the court of
Session for cancellation of bail and the
Court of Session has every liberty and
freedom to revoke the anticipatory bail
after recording the reasons for the same.
----------

(2021)10ILR A19
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24591 of
2021

Kamlesh Yadav & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Aditya Narayan Singh
20 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 439 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 328, 302application filed mischieviously by person for
the best known reason in the name of Aditya
Narayan Singh Advocate who was died in the
year
2014-application
on
behalf
of
two
applicants filed in a clandestine manner-the
court cannot shut its eye to the said issue-the
present case is a shame litigation-The Registrar
General directed to register First Information
Report for which investigation is needed to be
done seriously so as to cull out the truth and
appropriate action be taken against persons
involved in the bogus and clandestine filing of
bail application.(Para 1 to 16)

The application is disposed of. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Samit
Gopal, J.)

1. The present bail application under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure purports to have been filed on
behalf of the applicants Kamlesh Yadav
and Rajesh Chauhan in Case Crime No.
104 of 2020, under Sections 328, 302
IPC, Police Station Bahariyabad, District
Ghazipur who are stated to be in jail
since 09.04.2021.

2. Sri Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
(Advocate Roll No. A/A-0060/2012) has
appeared in the matter.

3. No one appears on behalf of the
applicants to press this bail application
even when the matter has been taken up
in the revised list.

4. Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned
Additional Government Advocate for the
State is present.

5. Sri Amit Srivastava, Advocate
appears on behalf of Saurabh Singh
Chauhan the purported deponent of the
present bail application.

6. The present bail application is an
example of a mischievous filing of a case
before a Court of law by fictitious
person(s).

7. This matter was initially taken up
on 26.07.2021 and the following order was
passed by this Court:-

"Matter taken up in the revised
list.

No one appears on behalf of the
applicants to press this bail application. Sri
Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A. is present for
the State.

Sri Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
has appeared in this matter and informed
the court that although he is not a counsel
in the present matter but the present bail
application has been shown to be filed by
Sri Aditya Narayan Singh Advocate having
Roll No. A/A-0132/12 and Sri Rajesh
Chandra Tiwari having Advocate Roll No.
A/R-1202/12 and states that same is a
mischief by some one as Sri Aditya
Narayan Singh has expired around two
years back and as per the Advocate Roll
No. A/R-1202/12 the same is some one else
and not of Sri Rajesh Chandra Tiwari.

Stamp Reporter has reported that
the certified copy of first information report
and free copy of bail rejection order is
required.

From perusal of bail application
it is apparent that the mobile number of Sri
Aditya
Narayan
Singh
Advocate
as
mentioned has 11 digits which is not
possible
even
the
memo
of
appearance/parcha has filed with the bail
application is hand written parcha which
10 All. Kamlesh Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
21
has the same details as have been
mentioned in the bail application.

Registrar General of this Court is
directed to give a report regarding the
details of both the counsels as printed in
the bail application within three days from
today.

Let the matter be listed on
30.07.2021 as fresh."

8. The Registrar General of this Court
gave a report dated 29.07.2021 which reads
as under:-

"................

In compliance to the above
directions, the details regarding above
mentioned
Advocates-on-Roll
nos.
A/A0132/12 and A/R1202/12 have been
sought from the AOR Sectioin and in
response, AOR Section has submitted three
pages in which following details are
mentioned:

1. Roll no. A/A0132/2012 (Flag-
''B') is assigned on the name of Aditya
Narayan Singh, S/o Udai Narayan Singh,
Chamber
No. 118
and
Mobile
No.
9450611089. The office peon went to the
above Chamber No. 118 where Sri Anil
Kumar Aditya (A/A0745/2012 s/o Sri
Aditya Narayan Singh, Advocate found. Sri
Anil Kumar Aditya came in may chamber
and informed me that his father Sri Aditya
Narayan Singh had died on 16.05.2014 and
submitted his father's death certificate
(Flag- ''C').

2. Roll No. A/R1202/2012 (Flag-
''D') is assigned on the name of Ravi
Tiwari S/o Madhu Sudan Tiwari, Chamber
No. 17 and Mobile No. 9335113219. I
personally called on the Mobile No.
9335113219 and asked him about this Bail
Application. Sri Ravi Tiwari came in my
chamber and informed me that he has not
submitted any Bail Application in this
matter.

On page no. 75 of this Bail
Application, the name of two Advocates are
mentioned. The Name, AOR No., Chamber
no. and Mobile no. of the one advocate is
mentioned as Sri Aditya Narayan Singh,
A/A0132/2012, 111 and 94450611089,
respectively and the Name, AOR No and
Chamber no. of another advocate is
mentioned as Rajesh Chandra Tiwari,
A/R1202/2012 and 111.

Page
No.
04
of
this
Bail
Application is having same name of Sri
Rajesh Chandra Tiwari with same AOR but
Chamber
no.
is
different
which
is
mentioned as Chamber No. 127, Old
Building, High Court, Allahabad.

The office peon went to the above
mentioned Chamber Nos. 111 and 127, Old
Building, High Court, Allahabad but none
of advocate having name Rajesh Chandra
Tiwari is found in both the Chambers.

In this regard, an information
about the purchasing authority of the
Welfare Stamp having serial number S.R.
No. HCBA 0167796 affixed on the back of
page no. 75 from the Secretary, High Court
Bar
Association,
Allahabad
and
in
response, the Hony. Secretary, High Court
Association, Allahabad has submitted that
the Welfare stamp has been taken by Sri
Aditya Narayan Singh, Advocate having
Advocate Roll No. A/A0132/2012 on
22.06.2021 (Flag- ''E').

On the perusal of the above facts, it is
clear that advocate Aditya Narayan Singh

has passed away long back and AOR
no. A/R1202/2012 is assigned to Sri Ravi
Tiwari instead of Sri Rajesh Chandra
Tiwari. On being search on the official
website of Allahabad High Court, no
record found on the name of Rajesh
Chandra Tiwari (Flag- ''F')."
22 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. The matter was then taken up on
30.07.2021 and the following order was
passed by this Court:-

"Sri Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
has appeared in the matter. No one appears
on behalf of the applicants to press this bail
application even when the matter has been
taken up in the revised list.

Sri
B.B.
Upadhyay,
learned
A.G.A. is present for the State.

This Court on 26.7.2021 has
passed the following order:-

"Matter taken up in the revised
list.

No one appears on behalf of the
applicants to press this bail application. Sri
Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A. is present for
the State.

Sri Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
has appeared in this matter and informed
the court that although he is not a counsel
in the present matter but the present bail
application has been shown to be filed by
Sri Aditya Narayan Singh Advocate having
Roll No. A/A-0132/12 and Sri Rajesh
Chandra Tiwari having Advocate Roll No.
A/R-1202/12 and states that same is a
mischief by some one as Sri Aditya
Narayan Singh has expired around two
years back and as per the Advocate Roll
No. A/R-1202/12 the same is some one else
and not of Sri Rajesh Chandra Tiwari.

Stamp Reporter has reported that the
certified copy of first information report and
free copy of bail rejection order is required.

From perusal of bail application it
is apparent that the mobile number of Sri
Aditya
Narayan
Singh
Advocate
as
mentioned has 11 digits which is not possible
even the memo of appearance/parcha has
filed with the bail application is hand written
parcha which has the same details as have
been mentioned in the bail application.

Registrar General of this Court is
directed to give a report regarding the details
of both the counsels as printed in the bail
application within three days from today.

Let the matter be listed on
30.07.2021 as fresh."

A report of the Registrar General
of this Court has been submitted. The said
report is on record. A perusal of the said
report goes to show that Sri Aditya Narayan
Singh, Advocate, who is shown as one of the
counsels in the bail application, has died on
16.5.2014. His death certificate has been
provided by his son which is on record. It is
further reported that the Advocate Roll No.
A/R1202/2012 is assigned on the name of Sri
Ravi Tiwari, Advocate, having his chamber in
Chamber No. 17 and not to Sri Rajesh
Chandra Tiwari who is also shown as
another counsel in the bail application. Even
a report from Hony. Secretary, High Court
Bar Association, Allahabad was called for
verification about the details of purchasing
authority of Welfare Stamp having Serial No.
HCBA 0167796 which is affixed on the back
of
page-75
being
the
memo
of
appearance/purcha filed on behalf of the
applicant and a report has been submitted
stating that the said Welfare Stamp has been
taken by Sri Aditya Narayan Singh, Advocate,
having Advocate Roll No. A/A0132/2012. It is
again reiterated that Sri Aditya Narayan
Singh has been reported to have died on
16.5.2014 but the said Welfare Stamp has
even then been purchased in his name.

Even the free copy of bail
rejection order has not been filed in this
bail application.

The deponent in the present bail
application is Saurabh Singh Chauhan
whose details are mentioned as under:-

"Affidavit
of
Saurabh
Singh
Chauhan, Aged about 22 years, Son of
Amrendra Singh Chauhan, Resident of
10 All. Kamlesh Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
23
Semaria,
Bhikhaipur,
Police
Station
Bahariyabad, District Ghazipur.

Religion:- Hindu

Occupation:- student

Adhar Card No. 7752 5693 3901

Mob. No. 9792990709."

He in para No. 1 of the affidavit
claims himself to be the son of the
applicant which is also incorrect as he
states himself to be the son of Amrendra
Singh Chauhan, but the present bail
application has been filed on behalf of
Kamlesh Yadav the applicant no. 1 and
Rajesh Chauhan the applicant no. 2. The
photocopy of Aadhar Card of the said
deponent is annexed at page-15 of the
paper book.

Issue notice to Saurabh Singh
Chauhan, son of Sri Amrendra Singh
Chauhan for his appearance before this
Court at 10.00 A.M. on 10.8.2021 through
C.J.M., Ghazipur, to be served on him
through concerned police station for which
office shall taken appropriate steps within
four days from today.

The said action be taken by the
office through Fax.

The matter being urgent in nature
as the two applicants are in jail be put up
before this Court on 10.8.2021 at 10.00
A.M. as fresh.

C.J.M., Ghazipur shall send his
compliance report by fastest mode to this
Court before the next date fixed."

10. Subsequently, on the matter being
taken up on 10.08.2021 the following order
was passed by this Court:-

"Sri Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
appears in the matter.

No one appears on behalf of the
applicant to press this bail application
evenwhen the matter is taken in the revised
list.

Sri
B.B.
Upadhyay,
learned
A.G.A. for the State is present.

Sri Prabha Shanker Mishra,
Honorary Secretary of the High Court Bar
Association, Allahabad is present on behalf
of the Bar Association.

The deponent of the present bail
application, Saurabh Singh Chauhan is
present before the Court in compliance of
the order dated 30.07.2021.

Sri
Amit
Kumar
Srivastava,
Advocate appears in the matter and states
that the deponent who has been summoned
vide order dated 30.07.2021 is present and
as he is the deponent in the bail application
of co-accused Amrendra Singh Chauhan,
as such, he is appearing on his behalf.

Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava prays
for and is granted 04 days time to file an
affidavit in the matter of the summoned
person.

Sri Prabha Shanker Mishra,
Honorary Secretary of the High Court Bar
Association states that he may be granted
05 days time to ascertain certain facts
regarding Sri Rajesh Chandra Tiwari who
is shown as a counsel appearing in the
present bail application and also the other
counsel who has been allotted Advocate
Roll No. A/R1202/2012 which is assigned
in the name of Sri Ravi Tiwari, Advocate.

Time as prayed is allowed to take
necessary steps at his end.

In the meantime, the Registrar
General of this Court is directed to accept
the bail application of the applicants which
as per the statement of Sri Abhishek Kumar,
Advocate has been presented for reporting
in the office on behalf of Kamlesh Yadav
and Rajesh Chauhan and present the same
before the Court having roster.

List this case on 16.08.2021 as
fresh for further arguments.

In the meantime, Sri Amit Kumar
Srivastava shall file the said affidavit and
24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sri Prabha Shanker Mishra may produce
the relevant report which he proposes to
prepare and provide it to the Court on the
next date.

The deponent of the present bail
application, Saurabh Singh Chauhan shall
remain present, when the matter is listed
next."

11. An affidavit dated 13.08.2021 has
been filed by Saurabh Singh Chauhan the
so called deponent of the present bail
application. Paras 2 to 12 of the said
affidavit are quoted hereinbelow:-

"2. That the deponent in the
present affidavit has been shown to be the
deponent of present Criminal Misc. Bail
Application, although he is not the
deponent in the said bail application nor he
ever instructed any counsel including Sri
Aditya Narayan Singh and Sri Rajesh
Chandra Tiwari, Advocates to file the
present bail application on behalf of
Kamlesh Yadav and Rajesh Chauhan. It is
also relevant to mention here that the
deponent has never been authorized by the
accused/applicants to file the present bail
application before this Hon'ble Court on
their behalf.

3. That it is relevant to mention
here that the deponent does not know Sri
Aditya Narayan Singh and Sri Rajesh
Chandra Tiwari, Advocates nor he ever met
with them despite that the present bail
application has been filed mentioning his
particulars and annexing his Adhar Card,
as the deponent in the present bail
application, although the deponent has
never instructed them to file the present
bail application.

4. That the deponent has come to
Allahabad and to engage Sri Amit Kumar
Srivastava, Advocate for filing the bail
application
of
his
father
Amrendra
Chauhan which was filed by Sri Amit
Kumar Srivastava, Advocate as Criminal
Misc. 1st Bail Application No. 28431 of
2021 which was allowed by the order dated
12.08.2020 passed by this Hon'ble Court.

5. That it appears that the present
bail application has been filed on behalf of
Kamlesh Yadav and Rajesh Chauhan
mischievously to keep them behind the bars
indefinitely and it also appears that for
filing the present bail application no
instruction has been given by the accused
applicants as neither certified copy of the
First
Information
Report
nor
the
free/certified copy of rejection order passed
by court below has been annexed along
with present bail application. It transpires
that the copy of Criminal Misc. 1st Bail
Application No. 28431 of 2021 (Amrendra
Chauhan Vs. State of U.P.) has been
obtained by someone and photocopy of the
documents / annexures have been annexed
in the said bail application which can be
verified by this Hon'ble Court after
perusing the annexures of present bail
application and of Criminal Misc. 1st Bail
Application No. 28431 of 2021.

6.
That
the
averments
in
paragraph Nos. 1 to 22 and 24 of the
affidavit filed in support of present bail
application are exactly same as averred in
paragraph Nos. 1 to 22 and 24 of affidavit
filed in support of Criminal Misc. 1st Bail
Application No. 28431 of 2021. For kind
perusal of this Hon'ble Court a photo copy
of the Criminal Misc. 1st Bail Application
No. 28431 of 2021, Amrendra Chauhan Vs.
State of U.P. is being filed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE NO. 1 to this
affidavit.

7. That the Aadhaar Card of the
deponent has been annexed alongwith
Criminal Misc. 1st Bail Application No.
28431 of 2021 and therefore the same was
obtained and mischievously been used
10 All. Kamlesh Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
25
annexing
alongwith
present
bail
application, although the deponent never
provided his Aadhaar Card to the counsel
or any other persons for filing the present
bail application, rather same was misused
after obtaining the copy of Criminal Misc.
1st Bail Application No. 28431 of 2021,
Amrendra Chauhan Vs. State of U.P.

8. This mischief while filing the
present
bail
application
would
also
apparent from the perusal of the bail
application which would reveal that eleven
digit mobile number of Sri Aditya Narayan
Singh Advocate has been mentioned, who
has already died on 16.05.2014, but mobile
number of Sri Rajesh Chandra Tiwari,
Advocate, who has mentioned his wrong
advocate roll number, has not been
mentioned in the bail application. In these
circumstances, it is apparent that at the
behest of persons inimical to the applicants
the present bail application has been filed
while showing the deponent as the
deponent in the present bail application.

9. That the deponent has no
concern with the applicant no.1 Kamlesh
Yadav but it has been mentioned in
paragraph-1 of the present bail application
that the deponent is the son of applicant,
although the deponent is the son of
Amrendra Singh Chauhan. The aforesaid
averments also show that the deponent has
never instructed any person to file the
present bail application on behalf of
Kamlesh Yadav and Rajesh Chauhan.

10. That the deponent is a young
boy, aged about 22 years and he is a
student of B.Sc. He is having absolutely
clean antecedent, despite that he has been
falsely
and
mischievously
shown
as
deponent in the present bail application
although he has no concern at all with the
applicants in the present bail application.
In support of aforementioned averments the
photo copies of educational certificates of
deponent are being filed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE NO.2 to this
affidavit.

11. That there was no occasion
for the deponent to file the present bail
application. He came to Allahabad only for
the pairvi of his father. He was never
authorized to do pairvi on behalf of
Kamlesh Yadav and Rajesh Chauhan nor
he ever did any pairvi on their behalf. His
Aadhaar Card which has been annexed
alongwith
Criminal
Misc.
1st
Bail
Application No. 28431 of 2021 has
surreptitiously been obtained and filed
along with the present bail application. The
deponent has not made his signature in the
bail application nor is signatures are
available in the present bail application.
Under these circumstances it is apparent
that he has not been involved in filing the
present bail application in any manner,
despite
that
he
is
being
harassed
unnecessarily.

12. That is is most respectfully
stated here that the deponent has not been
involved in filing of present bail application
in any manner. The present bail application
has
been
filed
by
some
person
mischievously in order to keep the
applicants behind bars for indefinite period
as no counsel ever appeared before this
Hon'ble
Court
and
whenever
bail
application was taken up. The deponent is
wholly innocent and he was not aware
about the present bail application. His
Aadhaar Card has been misused for
oblique purposes regarding which he had
no knowledge."

12. Sri Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
has produced before the Court an order
dated 23.11.2020 passed in Criminal Misc.
Anticipatory Bail Application (U/s 438
Cr.P.C.) No. 7610 of 2020 (Gram Pradhan
Rajesh Chauhan and two others Vs. State of
26 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
U.P. and two others), a perusal of which
goes to show that the said anticipatory bail
application was filed on behalf of Rajesh
Chauhan,
Amarendra
Chauhan
and
Kamlesh Yadav in which an order has been
passed on 23.11.2020 granting them
anticipatory bail till submission of police
report, if any, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
before the competent Court. The said
application also purports to have been filed
by Sri Aditya Narayan Singh Advocate.

Further,
an
order
dated
19.01.2021 has been produced before the
Court which has been passed in Criminal
Misc. Application (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) No.
135 of 2021 (Gram Pradhanpati Rajesh
Chauhan and two others Vs. State of U.P.),
a perusal of which goes to show that none
appeared in the matter when it was taken
up and as such the case was directed to be
listed in the ordinary course vide order
dated 19.01.2021. The said petition also
purports to have been filed by Sri Aditya
Narayan Singh Advocate.

Further,
another
order
dated
28.09.2020 has been produced before the
Court which has been passed in Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition No. 7968 of 2020
(Rajesh Chauhan and two others Vs. State
of U.P. and 3 others), a perusal of which
goes to show that even in the said writ
petition no one had appeared on behalf of
the petitioners when the matter was called
up in the revised list. The said writ petition
was dismissed for want of prosecution vide
order dated 28.09.2020. The same was
purported to have been filed by Sri Aditya
Narayan Singh and Sri Rajesh Shukla,
Advocates in which Sri Ram Yash
Chauhan, Advocate had appeared on behalf
of the private respondent apart from the
learned Additional Government Advocate
for the State.

The said three orders have been
taken on record.

13. The common feature in all the
three above petitions is that Sri Aditya
Narayan Singh, Advocate (who is reported
to have died on 16.05.2014) has been the
sole counsel in two matters and one of the
counsels in the writ petition.

14. From perusal of the entire records,
the report of the Registrar General of this
Court and the affidavit filed by Saurabh
Singh Chauhan, it is apparent that the
present bail application has been filed in a
clandestine manner for the reasons best
known to the person(s) who have played
mischief by filing the same and then not
appearing before the Court to press the
same. The present bail application is a
bogus bail application and this Court thus
cannot shut its eye to the said issue and let
the same go by after prima facie coming to
the opinion that the filing of the present
bail application on behalf of the two
applicants Kamlesh Yadav and Rajesh
Chauhan is in a clandestine manner. The
present case is a sham litigation. This Court
is resourceful enough to take appropriate
action in the matter and as such deems it
appropriate to take action in the present
matter pertaining to the bogus filing of the
present bail application of which notice
was given in the office of the learned
Government
Advocate,
High
Court,
Allahabad on 22.06.2021 which was
allotted Notice No. 22575 of 2021 and the
bail application was presented for reporting
in the office of the Stamp Reporter
(Criminal) of this Court on 28.06.2021 and
then the same was presented in the
concerned office for being placed before
the Court on 02.07.2021 and is thus before
this Court.
10 All. Dharmendra @ Patra Vs. State of U.P.
27

15. The Registrar General of this
Court is thus directed to register a First
Information Report in the present matter
for which an investigation is needed to be
done seriously so as to cull out the truth
and appropriate action be taken against
person(s) involved in the bogus and
clandestine filing of the bail application
before this Court. The needful be done
within one month from today.

16. The Senior Superintendent of
Police, Prayagraj is directed to ensure that
the investigation is done by a responsible
and a competent police officer efficiently.

17. A copy of this order be forwarded
by the office to the learned Additional
Government Advocate for its compliance.

18. Let the matter be listed on
25.10.2021 before this Court along with a
compliance report of the Registrar General
and the learned Additional Government
Advocate for further orders.
----------
(2021)10ILR A27
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31695 of
2021
with
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20006 of
2021
with
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30288 of
2021

Dharmendra @ Patra ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Sanjay Pathak, Sri Arvind Kumar Tewari

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section
439
&
Indian
Penal Code,1860-Sections -376, 452, 506In the instant case, victim after giving her
statement u/s 161 of the Code levelling
allegations of rape against the accused,
has given up the same in her statement
recorded
u/s
164
of
the
Code-the
investigating officer then records the
statement of the victim again u/s 161 of
the code and puts specific questions to her
with regard to the said variations in her
statements-The
said
action
of
the
Investigating Officer is not appreciable-It
shows disrespect to the courts who have
recorded statements u/s 164 of the code
by judicial magistrate in discharge of his
judicial
functions-The
act
of
putting
specific
questions
pertaining
to
the
variations in the said two statements by
the I.O. is viewed with the impression of
clearly
challenging
the
authority
of
judicial act-the I.O. clearly exceeded his
jurisdiction
with
a
sole
purpose
to
frustrate the statements recorded by a
Magistrate.(Para 3 to 15)

B. The statement made by the victim u/s
164 of the code before the magistrate
stands on a high pedestal and sanctity
during the course of investigation than
that of her statement recorded u/s 161 of
the code by the I.O. The said statement
u/s 164 is relevant under section 35 and
72 of Indian Evidence Act, and as such,
assumes the character of being a public
document.
Though
the
Investigating
Agency
has
unfettered
powers
to
investigate the matter, but they cannot on
their whims and fancy adopt a procedure
which would clearly be challenging the
sanctity of an act done by a court of law
while
discharge
of
a
judicial
function.(Para 9 to 12)