# Lakhan Singh & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 12 ILRA 472
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-30
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 9403 of 2022
- **Bench:** Krishan Pahal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lakhan-singh-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47900
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure,
1973

-
Section
438
-
Anticipatory Bail , Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 386,
120B, 504, 506, 409, 34 - Proclaimed
offender not entitled to anticipatory bail
as they do not cooperated with the
investigation. (Para -15 )

Applicants being proclaimed offenders - long
criminal antecedents - proceedings u/s 82/83
Cr.P.C. complete - long criminal antecedents.
(Para -16,18 )

HELD:-Every judgement has to be seen to its
own context and facts and the precedents
cannot be applied universally to every case.
Applicants
not
entitled
for
anticipatory
bail.(Para -21,22)
12 All. Lakhan Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
473
Anticipatory bail application rejected. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

472 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applicant is liable to be enlarged on
anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of
Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila
Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5
SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding
the anticipatory bail being granted to
applicant shall also be taken care of as per the
aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

9. In view of the above, the anticipatory
bail application of the applicant is allowed.
Let the accused-applicant- Shahzad be
released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime
(supra) on anticipatory bail on furnishing a
personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the court 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 case charge-sheet is
submitted the applicant shall not tamper with
the evidence during the trial;

5. that the applicant shall not
pressurize/
intimidate
the
prosecution
witness;

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

7. that in case of breach of any of
the above conditions the court below shall
have the liberty to cancel the bail.

10. It is made clear that observations
made hereinabove are exclusively for
deciding the instant anticipatory bail
application and shall not affect the trial or
deciding the regular bail application.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 472
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.
9403 of 2022
(U/S 438 CR.P.C.)

Lakhan Singh & Anr. ....Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri P.K. Singh, Sri Vijay Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Aman Kumar Dwivedi, Sri Kamlesh
Kumar Dwivedi, Sri Manoj Kumar Singh

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure,
1973

-
Section
438
-
Anticipatory Bail , Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 386,
120B, 504, 506, 409, 34 - Proclaimed
offender not entitled to anticipatory bail
as they do not cooperated with the
investigation. (Para -15 )

Applicants being proclaimed offenders - long
criminal antecedents - proceedings u/s 82/83
Cr.P.C. complete - long criminal antecedents.
(Para -16,18 )

HELD:-Every judgement has to be seen to its
own context and facts and the precedents
cannot be applied universally to every case.
Applicants
not
entitled
for
anticipatory
bail.(Para -21,22)
12 All. Lakhan Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
473
Anticipatory bail application rejected. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Upkar Singh Vs Ved Prakash & Ors. , (2004)
13 SCC 292

2. Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs The C.B.I. &
Anr. , (2013) 6 SCC 348

3. T.T. Antony etc. Vs St. of Kerala & Ors. ,
(2001) 6 SCC 181

4. Suresh Babu Vs St. of U.P. & Anr. , 2022 0
Supreme (AII) 653

5. Lavesh Vs St. (NCT of Delhi), ( 2012) 8 SCC
730

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

1. Heard P.K. Singh, learned counsel
for the applicants and Sri Kamlesh Kumar
Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant
as well as Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned
A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present anticipatory bail
application has been filed on behalf of the
applicants, Lakhan Singh and Dinesh, in
F.I.R./Case Crime No. 258 of 2021, under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 386, 120B,
504, 506, 409, 34 of IPC, Police Station-
Shamshabad, District- Agra, with a prayer
to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

PROSECUTION STORY

3. As per prosecution story, the
informant is a farmer by profession and he
is even involved in the cultivation of
agricultural land of his brother-in-law
Lokendra Singh and gets the benefit
thereon. He also sows the land of other
persons on contract. The informant is stated
to have placed 713 bags of potatoes of his
own and 1018 bags of potatoes of his
brother-in-law Lokendra Singh in the cold
storage owned by Bhagwan Singh and his
family
members.
The
main
accused
Bhagwan Singh, in collusion with the
applicants, is stated to have been running
the said cold storage without licence and
they all are stated to have refused to return
the said potatoes and the bags thereof to the
informant. The applicants and other coaccused persons are stated to have illegally
sold the said potatoes thereby defrauded the
informant. The informant is stated to be
having receipts of the said deposition of the
potato bags.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS

4. Learned counsel for the applicants
has stated that the applicants have been
falsely implicated in the present case. The
informant is the maternal uncle of Ravi
Parihar son of Lokendra Singh who has
registered another FIR No.192 of 2020
against the applicants on almost identical
allegations. Learned counsel has further
stated that the present FIR has been
instituted against the applicants out of
vengeance and the allegations in both the
FIRs are in-verbatim of each other. The
present FIR is hit by Section 300 Cr.P.C. as
the applicants have been put to double
jeopardy by the said FIR. He has further
stated that the complainant at the instance
of his nephew and brother-in-law has
lodged this false and frivolous FIR.

5. Learned counsel has also placed
much reliance upon an application sent by
Lokendra Singh, brother-in-law of the
informant to the Regional Manager of
Canara Bank on 23.6.2020 wherein it has
been stated that he is residing at Thane in
Maharashtra and, as such, he is unable to
come to the State of U.P. owing to
lockdown
imposed
due
to
Covid-19
474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pandemic. He has further stated that the
money being procured from the farmer by
Bhagwan Singh may be deposited in the
account for the payment of the CC Limit.
The said letter is filed as Annexure-6 to the
affidavit
accompanying
the
instant
anticipatory bail application. He has also
stated that there is no whispering of the
said letter in the instant FIR lodged by the
informant.

6. Learned counsel has further stated
that the matter is a civil dispute between
the two directors and the brother-in-law of
the informant has filed a case before the
Company Law Tribunal on 30.9.2021 and
just to harass the applicants, absolutely
vague allegations have been levelled
against them. The co-accused Gaurav and
Banti @ Brijesh have already been
enlarged on regular bail by another Bench
of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application Nos. 27619 of 2022 and 28072
of 2022 vide orders dated 21.7.2022 and
4.8.2022, respectively. The applicants have
no concern whatsoever with the business
transactions of the co-accused Bhagwan
Singh as they live separately and they are
not
a
beneficiary
to
the
business
transactions conducted by him. They have
been falsely implicated owing to their
relationship with the co-accused Bhagwan
Singh.

7. To buttress his arguments, learned
counsel has placed much reliance upon the
judgement of the Apex Court passed in
Upkar Singh Versus Ved Prakash and
Others1, wherein it has been laid down
that the legal right of an aggrieved person
to file counter case is permissible.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants
has
next
placed
reliance
upon
the
judgement of the Apex Court passed in
Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Versus The
Central Bureau of Investigation and
Another2, wherein it has been stated that
the second FIR on same set of facts is
barred and it is clearly violative of
fundamental rights enshrined under Article
14, 20 & 21 of the Constitution of India.

9. Learned counsel has next relied
upon another judgement of the Apex Court
passed in T.T. Antony etc. Versus State of
Kerala and Others3, wherein it has
categorically been stated that the second
FIR with respect to the same offence is
barred.

10. So far as the proceedings of
Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. are concerned,
learned counsel for the applicants has also
relied upon the judgement of this Court in
Suresh Babu Versus State of U.P. and
Another4, wherein it has been stated that
when the investigation is going on against a
Government Servant and the proceedings
u/s 82 of Cr.P.C. have been undertaken, the
accused person is entitled for anticipatory
bail.

11. It is further submitted that the
criminal history assigned to applicant no.1
is of 10 cases and the applicant no.2 is of 7
cases and the said criminal history of the
applicants has been explained in the
affidavit. They are not a previous convict.
Therefore, the applicants are entitled for
anticipatory bail as they are the reputed
persons in the locality. In case, the
anticipatory
bail
application
of
the
applicants is allowed, they will not misuse
the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

12. On the other hand, Sri Kamlesh
Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the
informant as well as Sri Vibhav Anand
Singh, learned A.G.A. have vehemently
12 All. Lakhan Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
475
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail on
the ground that the instant FIR is not barred
by Section 300 of Cr.P.C. as the informant
and the allegation of cheating are entirely
different in both the FIRs and even in both
FIRs, the time of offence is altogether
different. The co-accused Gaurav and Banti
@
Brijesh
have
not
been
granted
anticipatory bail rather they have been
released on regular bail.

13. It is also argued on behalf of the
informant that the applicants have not come
with clean hands as they have not disclosed
their entire criminal history as the applicant
no.1 and applicant no.2 are having criminal
history of 11 and 9 cases, respectively. The
number of criminal antecedents of the
applicants as disclosed by the learned
counsel for the applicants which are 10 and
7, respectively, have also not been properly
explained in the instant anticipatory bail
application as no orders have been annexed
thereon.

14. To add to it, learned counsels have
further stated that the applicants are
proclaimed offenders as the proceedings u/s
82/83 Cr.P.C. have been taken up against
them.

15. In support of his submissions,
learned counsel for the informant has relied
upon the judgement of the Apex Court
passed in Lavesh versus State (NCT of
Delhi)5, wherein it has categorically been
held that a proclaimed offender is not
entitled to anticipatory bail as he has not
cooperated with the investigation.

16. They have further argued that the
applicants being proclaimed offenders and
having long criminal antecedents, are not
entitled for anticipatory bail. Granting of
anticipatory bail would defeat the object of
Section 438 Cr.P.C.

CONCLUSION

17. Considering the overall facts and
circumstances of the case and upon
hearing the learned counsel for the parties
at length
and
also
considering
the
judgements of the Apex Court referred
above, this Court is of the view that first
of all, the judgements of Upkar Singh
(supra) and T.T. Antony (supra) do not
help the applicants at all as the said
judgements are not applicable to the
present case wherein it has categorically
been held that second FIR is not barred
although, the said facts are different as it
pertains to a cross-case.

18. So far as the applicability of the
judgement of this Court passed in Suresh
Babu (supra) in the present case is
concerned, this Court is of the view that the
said judgement also does not help the
applicants at all as the accused person in
the said case had no criminal history and
was a Government Servant and, thus, he
was granted anticipatory bail.

19. Now, coming to the judgement of
Lavesh (supra) , the said case law holds
good to-date and the applicants are
proclaimed offenders as the proceedings u/s
82/83 Cr.P.C. are almost complete and also
they are having criminal antecedents of 11
and 9 cases, respectively which has not
been properly explained either.

20. Here, in the context of the present
case, it would be proper to refer an excerpt
of a renowned book "Nature of the Judicial
Process" written by Justice Benjamin N.
Cardozo as under:-
476 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"Today, most judges are inclined
to say that what was once thought to be the
exception is the rule, and what was the rule
is the exception..... There has been a new
generalization which, applied to new
particulars, yields results more in harmony
with part particulars, and, what is still
more important, more consistent with the
social welfare. This work of modification is
gradual. It goes on inch by inch. Its effects
must be measured by decades and even
centuries. Thus measured, they are seen to
have behind them the power and the
pressure of the moving glacier.

Lord Halsbury said in Quinn v.
Leathom, 1901, A.C. 495, 506: "A case is
only an authority for what it actually
decides. I entirely deny that it can be
quoted for a proposition that may seem to
follow logically from it. Such a mode of
reasoning
assumes
that
the
law
is
necessarily a logical code, whereas every
lawyer must acknowledge that the law is
not always logical at all."

21. Thus, every judgement has to be seen
to its own context and facts and the precedents
cannot be applied universally to every case.

22. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, I am not inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the applicants.

23. The anticipatory bail application
is found devoid of merits and is,
accordingly, rejected.

24. However, it is made clear that the
observations
made
hereinabove
in
declining the anticipatory bail to the
applicants shall not in any way affect the
learned
trial
Judge
in
forming
his
independent
opinion
based
on
the
testimony of the witnesses.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 476
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S
438 CR.P.C. No. 9423 of 2022

Manish Gupta ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Alok Ranjan Mishra, Sri G.S. Chaturvedi,
Sr. Advocate

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

(A) Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 177,
182, 191, 192, 193, 196, 200, 207, 209,
463, 464, 468, 471, 120-B, 420, 504 &
506 - Application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. -
Matter related to family discord - civil
proceedings between parties since 1983 -
final report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. - challenged
under 482 Cr.P.C. - possibility of an amicable
solution - matter of apprehension of arrest -
non-bailable warrant issued against applicant
- no likelihood of applicant absconding - Held
- applicant entitled to be granted anticipatory
bail. (Para - 16,17)

Anticipatory Bail application allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Satender Kumar Antil Vs C.B.I. & anr. , 2022
SCC Online SC 825

2. Sushila Aggarwal Vs St. (NCT of Delhi), 2020
SCC online SC 98

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