Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13601 of 2021 Applicant :- Chhatrapal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lal Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicants Chhatrapal and Gaurav Srivastava in Case Crime No. 787 of 2018, S.S.T. No. 186 of 2019, under sections 420, 406, 323, 504, 506, 120B I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)D, 3(1)Dha SC/ST Act, P.S.- Izzatnagar, District - Bareilly.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the first information report was lodged by Neeraj Kumar against the applicants and one more person making allegations of dishonestly misappropriation of money which was deposited in the joint account and also committed maar-peet using abusive language and causing hurt to the informant. In the first information report, it has also been alleged that accused persons used caste related abuses. Further submission is that the first information report has been lodged just to harass the applicants and they have been falsely implicated. No such occurrence took place nor the allegations of the first information report is substantiated by any evidence, therefore, the applicants are entitled for anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that applicants have no criminal history and applicants are prepared to furnish sureties and bonds, there is no possibility of their either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the evidence.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and has submitted that charge sheet has already been submitted after investigation against the applicants in the aforesaid sections and cognizance have also been taken. Moreover, the accusation also involves the offence under the SC/ST Act, as such, the anticipatory bail is not maintainable.
Considered the submissions of both the sides.
It is not disputed that after police investigation, charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, it cannot be said that the first information report was lodged in order to falsely implicate the accused persons. Moreover, there is allegation under the SC/ST Act also. As such, the application is not maintainable too. At this stage, it is not possible to give a finding that no offence under the SC/ST Act is made out as that aspect will only be considered by the trial court at the stage of framing of the charge.
With reference to the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR has been registered in this case by order of the Magistrate on an application of the informant given under section 156(3) of the CrPC and the applicant has been falsely implicated for the purpose of harassment, it is pertinent to mention that after filing of the charge-sheet, this contention has no force, particularly keeping in view that the offence pertains to also an offence under SC/ST Act.
Even then it will not be inappropriate to point out that it is seen that frivolous and multiple complaints are being filed by unconcerned persons just to cause harassment. Therefore, the Court is constrained to observe that where complaint is filed alleging execution of forged agreement or sale deed and the complainant pleads himself earlier purchaser of that property, or, where such complainant claims himself member or post holder of an institution or society and files a criminal proceeding against other with allegation of fraud, forgery or criminal misappropriation or the like in respect of activities or business of such society or institution, such complainant should first show his legal status so claimed by him to proceed in the criminal proceeding. If any application has been given under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the complainant must disclose all prior judicial proceedings or criminal proceedings between the parties and any concealment in this regard must be considered adversely against such complainant. In respect of same cause if several criminal proceedings are initiated, all such proceedings should be clubbed in order to avoid unnecessary harassment and multiplicity of proceedings.
It appears that charge-sheet was challenged by the applicant in a proceeding under section 482 which was disposed by order dated 19.11.2019 and the order is annexed at page 72-73 and the application was rejected giving protection of 45 days against any coercive action. It appears that this application for anticipatory bail has been given after expiry of more than one and half years. This delay must have held up the proceeding before the court below and this also shows that there has been no threat of immediate arrest.
It is pertinent to mention that the anticipatory bail is not a substitute of a regular bail and for it, some extraordinary circumstances are required in comparison to regular bail. There should be some special reason for taking recourse of the provisions of anticipatory bail. There must also be a threat of arrest of the accused. The applicants have not been able to show any real threat of arrest or any extraordinary circumstances, as such, I do not find any ground for giving benefit of anticipatory bail, hence the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicants is rejected.
Order Date :- 27.9.2021 sailesh