# Srijan Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. 514 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2023) 3 ILRA 513
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-01
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application (U/S 438 Cr.P.C.) No. 846 of 2023
- **Bench:** Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/srijan-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-514-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-49869
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

60-A-Code

of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 438 - Indian
Penal Code-1860-Sections 307 & 506application-rejection-enmity-number
of
independent
witnesses
stated
that
applicant tried to kill the opposite parties
due to old enmity which is apparent from
previous FIR lodged by the applicant-No
probability of any colored or exaggerated
version of FIR-Injured sustained a
number of injuries-Not only oral evidence,
other
pieces
of
evidence
like
CCTV
footage, spot inspection report which
corroborates the prosecution theory-More
than sufficient evidence to show the
complicity of the applicant in the present
case-Hence, this is not a fit case for grant
of anticipatory bail.(Para 1 to 6)

The bail application is rejected. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

3 All. Srijan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
513
party no.2, namely, Abhay Pratap, was not
only criminal in nature and unbecoming of
an Officer of the court, but he also
committed criminal contempt of court since
his act amounted to interference with
course of justice and obstruction in the
administration of justice.

10. "Criminal contempt" means the
publication (whether by words, spoken or
written or by signs, or by visible representation,
or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any
other act whatsoever which: 1. scandalises or
tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower
the authority of, any court, or 2. prejudices, or
interferes or tends to interfere with, the due
course of any judicial proceeding; or 3.
interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs
or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice
in any other manner. Section 2(c) of the Act
emphasizes to the interference with the courts
of justice or obstruction of the administration of
justice or scandalizing or lowering the authority
of the court. Section 10 deals with power of
High Court to punish contempts of subordinate
courts. Section 12 deals with the punishment for
the contempt of court. Section 14(2) permits a
person charged with the contempt to have
charge against him tried by some Judge other
than the judge or judges in whose presence or
hearing the offence is alleged to have been
committed and the court is of opinion that it is
practicable to do so. Section 15 of the Act
empowers the court to take suo moto action for
cognizance of Criminal Contempt.

11. Conduct of opposite party no.2
against the applicant amounted to creation of
fear in the minds of the female Presiding
Officers of District Court faced with the acts of
sexual harassment. No Presiding Officer of a
court can be expected to discharge her official
duties of administration of justice freely and
fairly with a balanced and composed state of
mind, if such acts or the mere apprehension
thereof are there. The apprehension of
harassment through spoken words and written
words and stalking in court will always loom
large over her psyche. In a situation where
Presiding Officer of the court is herself not
secure, it cannot be expected that she would be
able to protect the litigants, who appear before
her for protection of their modesty from
unwarranted incursions and outrage by
accused, like opposite party no.2. This Court
has come across another such case of another
district, wherein a future date has been fixed
and it appears that this malice is spreading fast
in the district courts. The case which came
before this Court earlier also involved a lawyer
of District Court committing such offences
against a female Presiding Officer. In such a
situation, this Court is of the firm view that
before this meance spreads further the
accused, like the opposite party no.2, ought to
be dealt with iron hands through initiation of
proceedings for criminal contempt. Policy of
Zero Tolerance in such matters has become
imperative.

12. Accordingly, the Registry of this
Court is directed place this case before the
appropriate Bench, within two weeks for taking
suo moto cognizance of the criminal contempt
committed by the opposite party no.2., Abhay
Pratap.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 513
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application (U/S 438
Cr.P.C.) No. 846 of 2023

Srijan Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties
514 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ajeet Singh, Sri Shaghir Ahmad (Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Ankit Kapoor, Sri Prashant Pandey

A.
Criminal
60-A-Code

of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 438 - Indian
Penal Code-1860-Sections 307 & 506application-rejection-enmity-number
of
independent
witnesses
stated
that
applicant tried to kill the opposite parties
due to old enmity which is apparent from
previous FIR lodged by the applicant-No
probability of any colored or exaggerated
version of FIR-Injured sustained a
number of injuries-Not only oral evidence,
other
pieces
of
evidence
like
CCTV
footage, spot inspection report which
corroborates the prosecution theory-More
than sufficient evidence to show the
complicity of the applicant in the present
case-Hence, this is not a fit case for grant
of anticipatory bail.(Para 1 to 6)

The bail application is rejected. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Ravi Kapur Vs St. of Raj. (2012) AIR SC 2986
2. Alister Anthony Pareira Vs St. of Mah. (2012)
2 SCC 648
3. K.Rajapandian Vs St. of NCT of Delhi (2022)
LawSuit (Del) 1085
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shaghir Ahmad, Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Ajeet Singh,
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Prashant Pandey, learned counsel for the
first informant, Sri O.P. Mishra, learned
AGA for the State and perused the papers
on record.

2. The present application has been
moved on behalf of the applicant-Srijan
Singh seeking anticipatory bail in Case
Crime no. 0421 of 2022, under Sections
307
and 506
I.P.C., Police
Station
Bhelupur, District Varanasi.

3. As per allegations in the FIR on the
day of occurrence i.e., at about 1 pm on
26.12.2022,
one
Ashutosh
Tiwari
alongwith his friend Shariq was going on
his motorbike; the moment he reached near
R.P.F barrack, Srijan Singh S/o Manoj
(present applicant), with the intention to
kill him, over an old enmity deliberately
and intentionally ran his four wheeler over
Ashutosh Tiwari; it is alleged in the FIR
that this act was done purposefully and
knowingly; three other co-accused were
also sitting in that four wheeler; Ashotosh
and his friend Shariq sustained number of
serious injuries; Srijan Singh and Manoj
Singh escaped in their four wheeler
thinking that they have died; whole of the
incident was recorded in C.C.T.V. camera;
they were hospitalized and were referred to
another hospital for further management;
the injuries sustained by them were
dangerous to life.

4. It is contended on behalf of the
applicant that he was not driving the
vehicle and that he has been falsely
implicated in this case out of enmity; one
Rajesh Singh, who is family driver of the
applicant has stated that in fact it was he
who was driving the four wheeler at the
time of occurrence; it is next contended that
at the most it was a case of rash and
negligent driving and no offence under
Sections 307 and 506 I.P.C. is made out;
the investigation has not been conducted in
a fair manner; it has been twisted to make
out a case under Section 307 IPC.

To stress the above point, a
judgment of Supreme Court given in Ravi
Kapur vs. State of Rajasthan; AIR 2012
3 All. Srijan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
515
SC 2986 has been cited before me. I went
through the above judgment. It appears that
the Supreme Court has analyzed the
meaning of words 'negligence', 'culpable
negligence', 'reasonable care', 'doctrine of
res ipsa loquitur', 'difference between
rashness and culpable rashness' and certain
other matters in the light of Section 279
IPC. On the basis of above judgment, it is
argued that this case essentially fell within
the scope of Section 279 IPC only and not
Section 307 IPC. I fail to understand how
this judgment can be of any utility on the
point
stressed
before
this
Court.
Incidentally, in Para-15 of the judgment,
the Supreme Court has referred to its own
judgment in Alister Anthony Pareira vs.
State of Maharashtra; (2012) 2 SCC 648,
highlighting the fact that if a person doing
an act of rash and negligent driving, is
aware of the risk that a particular
consequences is likely to follow and that
consequences indeed occurs, he may be
held guilty not only for the act but also for
the consequences. In my view where the
act is either intentional or done with
conscious awareness of the consequences
there is no need to go into finer points of
differences between the rash and negligent
act and any rash or negligent act with the
knowledge of likelihood of dangerous
consequences. In my view no benefit of
this judgment can be derived by the
applicant in view of the fact that the
accused applicants act was allegedly
intentional and deliberate.

Another judgment which has
been cited before me is K. Rajapandian vs.
State of NCT of Delhi; 2022 LawSuit
(Del) 1085 decided on 06.05.2022. I went
through the above judgment too. Again I
failed to understand how this judgment can
give any benefit to the applicant.

5. The anticipatory bail application is
vehemently opposed by other side pointing
out certain facts, circumstances and also the
reply in response to the point raised by the
applicant which are as below:-

(i)
There
are
number
of
independent
witnesses
including
Chandrashekhar, Shariq, Ritesh Kumar
and injured one, who have clearly stated
that the applicant was driving the four
wheeler
and
that
he
intentionally
caused/changed the direction of his vehicle
and ran over them; It is with god's grace
that they have been saved;

(ii) The injured sustained a
number of injuries which could have been
proved fatal had timely medical assistance
not given to them;

(iii) Not only the inculpatory oral
evidence, there are other pieces of evidence
like C.C.T.V. footage, the spot inspection
report which corroborate the prosecution
theory;

(iv) In this case, the FIR has been
lodged in a prompt manner ruling out
probability of introduction of any colored
or
exaggerated
version
or
false
implication;

(vii) Both the parties had strained
relationship; This fact finds ample strength
from the previous FIR lodged by Srijan
Singh (the present applicant) against
Shariq Khan and 2 others under Sections
279, 504, 323, 427, 506, 342 IPC. It is
further argued that if enmity can be one of
the causes for false implication, it can be
one of the reasons which motivated the
accused to try to kill the persons of the
other side;

(viii) The admission of guilt by
his man indicates that applicant can exert
his influence over others to turn things in
his favour;
516 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(ix) It is argued that there is more
than sufficient evidence to show the
complicity of the applicant in this case and
that he is one of the main accused persons,
hence this is not a fit case for grant of
anticipatory bail.

6. I considered the nature of
allegations, the submissions of both the
sides and went through all the material on
record. It may be noted that an anticipatory
bail is not a substitute for regular bail. The
parameters for grant of anticipatory bail are
fundamentally different from the grant of
regular bail in certain respects. The
exercise of this extra-ordinary powers calls
for existence of some circumstances which
may prompt this court to intervene in the
regular process of law for the purpose of
furthering the ends of justice and for
preventing abuse/misuse of process of law.
I do not find any material to form an
opinion that the name of the applicant has
been dragged in to merely bring disgrace to
his name. I do not find any ground good
enough to give benefit of anticipatory bail
to the applicant, hence, the present
anticipatory bail application is rejected.

7. It is made clear that observations
made herein shall not in any way affect
the learned trial Judge in forming his
independent opinion based on material
before him at any stage of the trial.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 516
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application (U/S 438
Cr.P.C.) No. 1346 of 2023
And
Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application (U/S 438
Cr.P.C.) No. 1348 of 2023

Vinod Bihari Lal ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Sri Kumar Vikrant

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A.
Criminal
Law
-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section
438
-
Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 153-A, 506,
420, 467, 468 & 471 - U.P. Prohibition of
Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act,
2021-Sections 3 & 5(1) - allegations of
conversion with regard to vulnerable
segments of society -applicants being
influential persons are channelizing the
funds collected from overseas group-the
applicants are not cooperating with the
police even after having knowledge of
non-bailable
warrants-Protection
was
granted but the applicants failed to ensure
appearance
before
the
Investigating
Officer which shows that they do not
have any intention to cooperate in the
investigation-More
so,
the
applicants
cannot be excused only that they have not
been named in the FIR-In the present
case, sentiments of public at large are
involved wherein any secular country like
India
the
same
would
amount
in
shattering the peace and harmony-Hence,
the power u/s 438 Cr.P.C. cannot be
utilized
in
a
routine
manner
as
a
substitute for regular bail.(Para 1 to 47)

B. The power of granting 'anticipatory bail'
is extraordinary in character and only in
exceptional cases where it appears that a
person is falsely implicated or a frivolous
case is launched against him or there are
reasonable grounds for holding that a
person accused of an offence is not likely
to abscond, or otherwise misuse his
liberty while on bail, such power is to be
exercised. (Para 9)