# Vinod Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 11 ILRA 5
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-01
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 462 of 2023
- **Bench:** Krishan Pahal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vinod-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49369
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Bail Cancellation -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420,
467, 468, 471, 386, 397, 115, 323, 504 &
506 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section
44 - Fraud or collusion in obtaining
judgment, or incompetency of Court, may
be proved -Any party to a suit or other
proceeding may show that any judgment,
order or decree which is relevant under
section 40, 41 or 42 and which has been
proved
by
the
adverse
party,
was
delivered by a Court not competent to
deliver it, or was obtained by fraud or
collusion. (Para -4)

Anticipatory bail application filed on 08.06.2023
- allowed on same day - prior to it, first
anticipatory bail application was filed before
same court - was withdrawn on 07.06.2023 -
order garnered by applicant in a hurry by
concealing fact of criminal history - evident
from para-3 of the impugned order.(Para -7,
8)

HELD:-Bail order obtained by parties 2 and 3
was unsustainable due to their concealment
of their criminal antecedents, as per Section
44 of the Indian Evidence Act. Impugned bail
order set aside.
 Opposite
parties
are
allowed to surrender before Trial Court and
request regular bail, following Apex Court's
rulings in S.K. Antil vs. C.B.I.(Para - 8, 9,
10)

Bail Cancellation Application allowed. (E7)

LIST OF CASES CITED:-

## Text

11 All. Vinod Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
5
(2023) 11 ILRA 5
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No.
462 of 2023

Vinod Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Arun Kumar Singh, Sri Chandrika Patel

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Girish Tiwari

(A) Criminal Law - Bail Cancellation -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420,
467, 468, 471, 386, 397, 115, 323, 504 &
506 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section
44 - Fraud or collusion in obtaining
judgment, or incompetency of Court, may
be proved -Any party to a suit or other
proceeding may show that any judgment,
order or decree which is relevant under
section 40, 41 or 42 and which has been
proved
by
the
adverse
party,
was
delivered by a Court not competent to
deliver it, or was obtained by fraud or
collusion. (Para -4)

Anticipatory bail application filed on 08.06.2023
- allowed on same day - prior to it, first
anticipatory bail application was filed before
same court - was withdrawn on 07.06.2023 -
order garnered by applicant in a hurry by
concealing fact of criminal history - evident
from para-3 of the impugned order.(Para -7,
8)

HELD:-Bail order obtained by parties 2 and 3
was unsustainable due to their concealment
of their criminal antecedents, as per Section
44 of the Indian Evidence Act. Impugned bail
order set aside.
 Opposite
parties
are
allowed to surrender before Trial Court and
request regular bail, following Apex Court's
rulings in S.K. Antil vs. C.B.I.(Para - 8, 9,
10)

Bail Cancellation Application allowed. (E7)

LIST OF CASES CITED:-

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

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

1. List has been revised. Rejoinder
affidavit filed today by the learned
counsel for the applicant is taken on
record.

2. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Girish Tiwari, learned counsel for the
opposite party nos.2 & 3 as well as Sri
Varun Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for
the State and also perused the record.

3. The instant bail cancellation
application
has
been
filed
by
the
applicant
assailing
the
order
dated
08.06.2023 passed by learned Sessions
Judge, Rampur whereby learned Court
concerned after withdrawal of first
anticipatory
bail
application
on
07.06.2023, has allowed the Second
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 905 of
2023, u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 386, 397,
115, 323, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station-
Kotwali, District- Rampur in Complaint
Case No.5206 of 2022.

4. The submission of the learned
counsel for the applicant is that the
impugned order dated 08.06.2023 has
been obtained by the opposite party nos. 2
& 3 by playing fraud with the court as they
6 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
had concealed their criminal history which
is evident from para-3 of the said order
dated 08.06.2023. Learned counsel has
placed reliance on Section 44 of the Indian
Evidence Act and for ready reference,
Section 44 reads as under:-

"44. Fraud or collusion in
obtaining judgment, or incompetency of
Court, may be proved.-Any party to a suit
or other proceeding may show that any
judgment, order or decree which is relevant
under section 40, 41 or 42 and which has
been proved by the adverse party, was
delivered by a Court not competent to
deliver it, or was obtained by fraud or
collusion."

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the
opposite party nos.2 and 3 has stated that
the opposite party no.2 Sadhna Singh has
criminal history of three cases;

(i) Case Crime No.30 of 2023, u/s
395, 397, 354B, 448, 504, 323, 120-B of
IPC, P.S. - Ganj, District - Rampur, was
instituted
by
the complainant
herein
himself against the applicant and other coaccused persons in which closure report has
been filed.

(ii) Case Crime No. 50 of 2014,
u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, P.S. - Ganj,
District - Rampur, was also instituted
against the applicant and she was enlarged
on bail on 08.04.2015.

(iii) Case Crime No.180 of 2022,
u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, P.S. -
Baradari, District - Bareilly. In the said
case, investigation is going on and no
summons/warrants were issued against her.

6. So far as the opposite party no.3 is
concerned, there is a criminal history of
one case i.e. Case Crime No.30 of 2023, u/s
395, 397, 354-B, 448, 504, 323, 120-B of
IPC, P.S. - Ganj, District - Rampur
wherein she has been exonerated by the
police and a closure report has been filed.
The applicant has no knowledge of further
proceedings in the said case.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant
has further stated that the said anticipatory
bail application was filed on 08.06.2023
and was allowed the same day, prior to it,
first anticipatory bail application was filed
before the same court and was withdrawn
on 07.06.2023. The said order has been
garnered by the applicant in a hurry by
concealing the said fact of criminal history.

8. Considering the rival submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and taking into consideration the
fact that the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 while
obtaining the bail order before the court
concerned, had concealed the fact of their
criminal antecedents which is also evident
from para-3 of the impugned order dated
08.06.2023 coupled with the provisions of
Section 44 of Indian Evidence Act, the said
order dated 08.06.2023 passed by learned
Sessions Judge, Rampur is not sustainable
and is set aside.

9. In view of the above, the instant
bail cancellation application is allowed.
The impugned bail order dated 08.06.2023
passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rampur
is hereby set aside.

10. However, two weeks' time from
the
date
of
pronouncement
of
this
Judgment is granted to opposite party nos.
2 & 3 to surrender before the concerned
Trial Court and thereafter it will be open
for them to pray for regular bail, which
may be considered in accordance with law
laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau
11 All. Allama Zamir Naqvi @ Tahir In Fir Zameen Naqvi @ Tahir Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 7
of Investigation and another, reported in
2022 SCC Online SC 825.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 7
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S
438 CR.P.C. No. 2553 of 2023

Allama Zamir Naqvi @ Tahir In Fir Zameen
Naqvi @ Tahir ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Prateek Tewari, Parush Kumar Saxena, Raj
Nath Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal
Law-The
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 438--Anticipatory
bail rejected by the Sessions court on the
ground
that
the
incident
occurred
on
27.04.2014, on which date the provisions of
Section 438 Cr.P.C. were not applicable to the
St. of U.P---The Criminal Procedure Code (U.P.
Amendment) Act, 2018 merely restores the
benefit
of
anticipatory
bail
to
persons
apprehending
arrest,
which
benefit
was
available to similarly situate persons in the rest
of India immediately before enactment of the
aforesaid Amendment Act and which benefit
was available to the persons in the St. of U.P.
also before enactment of Code of Criminal
Procedure (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1976. This
being a beneficial legislation, it cannot be
restricted in its operation to offences committed
subsequent to enactment of Act, 2019 and it will
be available to all the persons 'apprehending
arrest' after enactment of the Amendment Act,
2018, even if the offence was committed prior
to enactment of the Amendment Act, 2018---
The reason given by the learned Session court
for rejection of the anticipatory bail application
is incorrect---- Old animosity between the
parties regarding which two FIRs had been filed
on previous occasions; that besides the version
of the informant, there is no other material to
support the allegations; there is some variance
in the version of the incident and in the St.ment
of victim recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C.
and 164 Cr.P.C. and the applicant is 60 years
old person.

Anticipatory bail granted.(E-15)

List of the cases referred-:

1. T. Barai Vs Henry Ah Hoe, (1983) 1 SCC 177

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,
J.)

1. Heard Sri Prateek Tewari, the
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jayant
Singh Tomar, the learned AGA for the State
and perused the records.

2. The instant application has been
filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory
bail in Case No. 193 of 2016, Crime
No.511 of 2014 under Sections 452, 354
IPC, Police Station Unchahar, District
Raebareli.

3. The aforesaid case has been
registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on
27.04.2014 at 21.30 hours against the
applicant and one Hira Lal, stating that
both the accused persons had gone to the
informant's house on 27.04.2014 and had
started molesting her but when she cried
the accused persons ran away.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of
the application, it has been stated that the
applicant is 60 years old and is innocent
person, who has falsely been implicated in
the
present
case.
The
applicant's