# Ranjeet v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 1299
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-13
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 872 of 2024
- **Bench:** Krishna Pahal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ranjeet-v-state-of-u-p-51341
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-Section 438-Allegation that the
1300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applicant has applied for Passport thrice -by
altering his name and parentage in them-failed
to highlight the animosity carried by the police
against the applicant- satisfaction of the court
for granting protection under Sectiontion 438
Cr.P.C. is different from the one under
Sectiontion 439 Cr.P.C. Application rejected.
(E-9)

Case law:

## Text

2 All. Ranjeet Vs. State of U.P.
1299
has explained the criminal history in para
47 of the bail application. He is on bail in
all the 17 cases. He submits that merely
because applicant has a criminal history
will not dis-entitle him to be enlarged on
bail. He has relied on judgment of Supreme Court
in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs.
State of U.P. & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No.159 of
2012]. He submits that role of the accused in the
particular case has to be seen while granting bail,
emphasis is on para 6. He has further relied on the
judgment of Supreme Court in the case of
Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
[AIRONLINE 2020 SC 96].

7. On due consideration to the submissions
advanced, perusal of the record as also the bail orders
of the co-accused persons named above who have
been enlarged on bail, period of incarceration gone
into by the applicant and the explanation of the
criminal history so also the judgment of Supreme
Court passed in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi &
Prabhakar Tewari (supra), prima facie, this Court is
of the opinion that case of the applicant is on better
footing than the named co-accused persons
Jalaluddin and Vaseer Khan, without expressing any
opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case
for enlarging the applicant on bail.

8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant Sanjay Yadav Pradhan be
released on bail in aforesaid case crime number
subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two
reliable sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the
following conditions:

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the
evidence during the trial.

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/
intimidate the prosecution witness.

(iii) 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.

(iv) The applicant shall file an
undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any
adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when
the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of
this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to
treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in
accordance with law.

(v) The applicant shall remain present
before the trial court on each date fixed, either
personally or through his counsel. In case of his
absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may
proceed against him under Section 229-A of the
Indian Penal Code.

(vi) 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.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1299
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHNA PAHAL, J.

Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438
Cr.P.C. No. 872 of 2024

Ranjeet ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Naveen Tiwari, Sri Ritik Raj

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.
Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-Section 438-Allegation that the
1300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applicant has applied for Passport thrice -by
altering his name and parentage in them-failed
to highlight the animosity carried by the police
against the applicant- satisfaction of the court
for granting protection under Sectiontion 438
Cr.P.C. is different from the one under
Sectiontion 439 Cr.P.C. Application rejected.
(E-9)

Case law:

1. P. Prathapachandran Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation, Ernakula, 1999 CrLJ 2002 (Ker)

2. R.S. Nayak Vs A.R. Antulay, (1984) 2 SCC
183

3. Satpal Singh Vs St. of Pun., (2018) 13 SCC
813

4. Pratibha Manchanda & anr.Vs St. of Har. &
anr., (2023) 8 SCC 181

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

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Harsh Vardhan Singh,
learned counsel for applicant as well as Sri
Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for State
and also perused the material available on
record.

3. The present application for
anticipatory bail has been filed for
protection in regard to FIR/Case Crime No.
444 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467,
468, 471 I.P.C. and 12 of Passport Act, 1967,
P.S.- Barhalganj, District- Gorakhpur.

PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The FIR was instituted by the SI Gyan
Prakash Shukla PS Barhalganj, Distt. Gorakhpur
on 26.06.2023 with the allegations that it has
come to his knowledge that RANJEET s/o Ram
Bahadur has procured three passports i.e. No.
K3464309 as Ranjeet Sahani s/o Ram Bahadur
Sahani, No. P4364782 as Ranjeet Nishad s/o
Bahadur Nishad and No. W8305151 as Ranjeet
Nishad s/o Bahadur Nishad.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS:

Arguments for Applicant:

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has
stated that the he is maliciously being prosecuted
in the present case due to ulterior motive and has
the apprehension of his arrest. The applicant has
nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by
the prosecution. Learned counsel has next stated
that the informant is the Sub Inspector and he has
not divulged the person from whom he had
received the said information. The applicant is an
illiterate and rustic person and for the sake of
employment he had got his passport applications
filed through broker and the discrepancy, if any, is
due to his negligence.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has
further argued that the passports have been issued
after due enquiry and investigation. The police had
demanded bribe from him and after the refusal to
grease their palm, the instant FIR has been
instituted.

7. It is also argued by the counsel for the
applicant that after getting the knowledge of the
said multiplicity of applications for passport, he
had given an application for the closure of the File
on 10.04.2023. The same is filed as Annexure-4 to
the affidavit filed with the anticipatory bail
application. The instant FIR has been lodged
two months thereafter. The files of the
applicant have been closed and the same
have been filed as Annexure-5 to the
affidavit filed with the bail application, as
such nothing remains against the applicant.

8. It is further argued that a letter for
apology has been sent by the applicant to
the Regional Passport Officer, Lucknow on
04.07.2023 which is filed as annexure-7 to
2 All. Ranjeet Vs. State of U.P.
1301
the affidavit filed with the anticipatory bail
application.

9. Learned Counsel for the applicant
has vehemently argued that the instant FIR
has no legs to stand as it has been lodged
without mandatory previous sanction of the
Central government as provided under Section 15
of the Passports Act, 1967. The said provision is as
under:

15. Previous sanction of Central
Government necessary.- No prosecution shall
be instituted against any person in respect of any
offence under this Act without the previous
sanction of the Central Government or such
officer or authority as may be authorized by that
Government by order in writing in this behalf.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant has
further specified that the applicant had filed a
criminal Miscellaneous Writ No. 17320 of
2023 which was dismissed for want of
prosecution and not on merits. There is no
iota of evidence against him and he has no
criminal antecedents.

Arguments for State:

11. Learned AGA Shri. Ram Mohit Yadav
has stated that the applicant is an imposter as he
has procured three passports by altering his name
and parentage altogether bearing No.'s K3464309
as Ranjeet Sahani s/o Ram Bahadur Sahani,
P4364782 as Ranjeet Nishad s/o Bahadur Nishad
and W8305151 as Ranjeet Nishad s/o Bahadur
Nishad while his Aadhar card reveals his name to
be RANJEET s/o Ram Bahadur. The applicant
has obtained the passports by not only
suppressing the information but has produced
fake and doctored documents and got them
issued.

12. It is further argued by learned AGA
that there is no plausible or proper explanation
to the fact of applying for a passport thrice. It is
an open and shut case, although he could not
dispute the fact that the applicant has no
criminal antecedents.

CONCLUSION:

13. The argument of learned counsel for
the applicant as to whether FIR can be lodged
without previous sanction of the Central
government as provided under Section 15 of the
Passports
Act,
1967
requires
further
exploration.

14. The word used in section 15 of the
Passports Act, 1967 is 'prosecution' and not the
'FIR.' As per the sixth edition of the
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY the word
'prosecution' is defined as:

'a proceeding instituted and
carried on by due course of law, before a
competent tribunal, for the purpose of
determining the guilt or innocence of a person
charged with crime.'

15. Thus, the proper interpretation of the
provision would be that for institution of a First
Information Report (FIR) and investigation
thereupon, there is no obligatory requirement to
secure prior sanction, even against a public
servant, as per the mandate of Section 197 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It shall
equally apply to the persons charged under The
Passports Act, 1967. When obtaining sanction
is a prerequisite for initiating legal proceedings,
it must be secured at the stage of
presentation of charge sheet before the
magistrate and taking of the cognizance
thereupon.

16. In P. Prathapachandran Vs.
Central
Bureau
of
Investigation,
Ernakula1, it was opined by the High Court
that the point of time relevant for the
1302 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
competent authority to accord sanction to
prosecute under Section 19(1)(c) of the Act
is the time when the Court is called upon to
take cognizance of the offence. Therefore,
the contention raised by the petitioner
against the validity of the sanction
accorded under Section 19(I)(c) of the Act and
the competency of the officer who granted the
sanction are untenable.

17. In R.S. Nayak Vs. A.R. Antulay2, the
five-Judges Bench of the Supreme Court has
observed that existence of a valid sanction is a
pre-requisite to the taking of cognizance of the
enumerated offences alleged to have been
committed. Thus, the said argument of nonavailability of sanction to prosecute at the stage
of FIR or investigation does not carry any force.
Therefore, no sanction is required to investigate
the instant matter.

18. Eminent jurist Benjamin N.
Cardozo in his book 'Nature of the Judicial
Process' at page 70 has stated "The general
framework furnished by the statute is to be
filled in for each case by means of
interpretation, that is, by following out the
principles of the statute. In every case, without
exception, it is the business of the court to
supply what the statute omits, but always by
means of an interpretative function."

19. Learned counsel has failed to highlight
the animosity carried by the police against the
applicant. The applicant has applied for Passport
thrice by altering his name and parentage in them.

20. The satisfaction of the court for granting
protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is different
from the one under Section 439 Cr.P.C. while
considering regular bail as settled by the Apex
Court in Satpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab3.

21. The relief of anticipatory bail is aimed
at safeguarding individual rights. While it
serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of
the power of arrest and protects innocent
individuals from harassment, it also presents
challenges in maintaining a delicate balance
between individual rights and the interests of
justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in
striking a balance between safeguarding
individual rights and protecting public interest
as laid down in the latest judgement of the
Supreme Court in Pratibha Manchanda and
another Vs. State of Haryana and another4.

22. In view of the above, the present
anticipatory bail application is found devoid of
merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

23. It is clarified that the observations
made herein are limited to the facts brought in
by the parties pertaining to the disposal of
anticipatory bail application and the said
observations shall have no bearing on the merits
of the case.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1302
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438
Cr.P.C. No. 1224 of 2023

Vivek Yadav & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents.

Counsel for the Applicants:
Nadeem Murtaza, Aditya Vikram Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Lalta Prasad Misra, Prafulla Tiwari

Criminal law - Code of Criminal procedureSection 362-Anticipatory bail granted with