# Smt. Urmila Devi & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 428
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-18
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application (U/S 438 Cr.P.C.) No. 3552 of 2023
- **Bench:** Krishan Pahal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-urmila-devi-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50216
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

428 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the standard of test, proof and judgment which
is needed for finding of a guilt or otherwise is
not necessary for framing charge at this stage
and even a strong suspicion found upon
materials before the Court may justify framing
of charge. The Court can sift and weigh the
evidence for the purpose of finding out
whether prima facie case against the accused
has been made out. If two views are equally
possible and the evidence gives rise to a grave
suspicion, charge may be framed. The word
"ground" has been used in these two sections
in the context of putting an accused on trial. It
is the trial in which the guilt or the innocence
of the accused will be determined and not at
the time of taking cognizance or framing of
charge. The Court, therefore, need not
undertake an elaborate inquiry in sifting and
weighing the materials nor is it necessary to
delve deep into various aspects. At this stage
defence of the accused has not to be seen.

55. On the basis of above discussion, this
Court is again of the view that at this stage no
case is made out in favour of the applicants
and it cannot be concluded that the charge
sheet has been submitted without proper and
sufficient ground and the rejection of
discharge application is bad in view of the fact
and law of the case.

56. Accordingly, this application
under Section 482 CrPC is dismissed.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 428
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application (U/S 438
Cr.P.C.) No. 3552 of 2023

Smt. Urmila Devi & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, Sri Praveen
Chandra Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Gaurav Sharma

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 319, 437 & 438 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, , 325,
392, 452, 504 & 506 - Application for
Anticipatory Bail - FIR - earlier applicants were
enlarged on Bail under sections 323, 325, 504,
506 IPC only by the Magistrate - thereafter,
applicants were summoned by the court concern
by invoking the power u/s 319 of Cr.P.C. - they
applied for bail in the added sections 392, 452
of IPC - Court held that, no person can be
permitted to apply for bail in part, that too firstly
getting bail by invoking u/s 437 Cr.P.C. and later
on taking recourse to section 438 Cr.P.C. in the
other sections, he has to apply for bail in all the
sections he is wanted either u/s 437 or 438
Cr.P.C.
-
Accordingly,
Anticipatory
Bail
Application is rejected. (Para - 9, 11)

Bail Application Rejected. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

Satyan Vs St. of Kerala (1981 Cri. L J 1313).

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

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the applicants, Sri
Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel for the
informant, Sri Ramesh Chandra Vaishya in
person, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the material
placed on record.

3. The present application for
anticipatory bail has been filed for
5 All. Smt. Urmila Devi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
429
anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.58 of
2016, under Sections 392 and 452 I.P.C.,
Police Station Tharwai, District Allahabad,
during the pendency of trial.

4. To avoid verbiage, the allegations
levelled in the FIR are not been narrated
here.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants
has submitted that the applicants have been
falsely implicated in the present case. The
applicants were summoned by the court
concerned by invoking the powers under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. in the present case.
Learned counsel has further stated that the
summoning order under Section 319
Cr.P.C. dated 15.03.2021 was passed under
Sections 323, 504, 506, 325, 452 and 392
I.P.C and the applicants had applied for bail
under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506
I.P.C. only, as such they were enlarged on
bail by the Magistrate concerned on
04.01.2022. Learned counsel has further
stated that the applicants are entitled for
bail in the added sections also as they have
not misused the bail granted earlier on.

6. Per contra, learned AGA and the
informant in person have vehemently
opposed the anticipatory bail application on
the ground that neither the Magistrate nor
the Public Prosecutor took care to see under
what
sections
the
applicants
were
summoned and the bail was granted to the
applicants except Sections 452 and 392
I.P.C. Thus, the applicants have misused
the process of court as they were already
enlarged on regular bail by the court
concerned in some sections only. The
applicants can't be permitted to apply in
part before the Magistrate by invoking
Section 437 Cr.P.C. and then apply in other
sections by invoking Section 438 Cr.P.C.
This is misuse of process of court. At the
outset, either the applicants should have
applied under Sections 438 Cr.P.C. before
the Sessions Court, Allahabad or should
have applied under all the sections in the
Court of the Magistrate concerned.

7. Learned A.G.A. has also argued
that the Magistrate is competent to hear and
either reject or grant a bail in the cases of
triable by a Court of Magistrate even if the
sentence of life imprisonment could be
passed. He has placed much reliance on the
judgment of Satyan vs. State of Kerala
reported in 1981 Cri LJ 1313, whereby the
said opinion was expressed by the High
Court.

8. The arguments advanced by
informant in-person and A.G.A. carry
conviction
that
the
Magistrate
was
competent to hear and dispose of the bail
under Sections 392 and 452 I.P.C. The said
act at the part of the applicants and
Magistrate concerned and even the Public
Prosecutor was clearly not proper. The
applicants have certainly not come with
clean hands.

9. The accused was summoned under
Sections 323, 504, 506, 325, 452 and 392
I.PC. and should have applied for bail in all
the sections. No person can be permitted to
apply for bail in part, that too firstly getting
bail by invoking powers u/s 437 Cr.P.C.
and later on taking recourse to Section 438
Cr.P.C. in the other sections. He has to
apply for bail in all the sections he is
wanted either u/s 437 Cr.P.C. or 438
Cr.P.C.

10. After hearing learned counsel for
the parties and taking into consideration the
rival submissions and careful perusal of
annexure nos.9 and 10 of the affidavit filed
with the anticipatory bail application, I do
430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory
bail to the applicants.

11. The present anticipatory bail
application is hereby found devoid of
merits and is accordingly dismissed.

12. 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 during trial.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 430
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application (U/S 438
Cr.P.C.) No. 3979 of 2023

Alok Kumar Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Zafar Abbas, Sri Sushil Kumar Tewari

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Sri Deepak Kumar Srivastava, Sri
Mukesh Joshi

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code,1973-Section 438 - Indian Penal
Code,1860-Sections 354, 354B, 323, 504
& 506- application-rejection- There is a
dispute between the parties over the
disposal of garbage etc. an altercation has
taken place between the parties -the
applicant has agitated the provisions of
Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has failed- the
applicant and co-accused persons have
outraged the modesty of two women and
had even torn off the clothes of the
informant-The
said
allegations
stand
fortified
by
the
statements
of
the
informant and the victim recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C-The other co-accused
have not been enlarged on anticipatory
bail, rather they have been enlarged on
regular
bail
by
Session
Court-The
applicant is not entitled for anticipatory
bail as he is used to filing several
applications at various forums and has
delayed the trial since 2020- He is not
cooperating and the matter is pending
since last three years- it is the applicant,
who has stalled the trial at one pretext or
the other by moving several applications
and this is the fourth anticipatory bail
application.
The
proceedings
under
Section 82 Cr.P.C. have been initiated
against the applicant-Hence, it is not a fit
case for granting the anticipatory bail to
the applicant. (Para 1 to 19)

The application is rejected. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Suresh Babu Vs St. of U.P. & anr. ABAIL No.
3532 of 2022

2. Lavesh Vs State (NCT of Delhi)

3. Chandmal Vs St. of M.P. & anr.

4. Satender Kumar Antil Vs C.B.I. & anr.

5. Puran Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.

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

1. Heard Sri Zafar Abbas and Sushil
Kumar Tewari, learned counsels for the
applicant and Sri Deepak Kumar Srivastava
and Sri Mukesh Joshi, learned counsels for
the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar,
learned A.G.A. for the State and also
perused the record.

2. The present anticipatory bail
application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 1277 of