Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 19936 of 2021 Applicant :- Dilshad Ali Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Dilshad Ali Khan, seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.209 of 2017, under Section -420 I.P.C., Police Station -Bilari, District -Moradabad, during pendency of trial.
3. At the outset, learned AGA raised a preliminary objection as to maintainability/entertainment of the present application. He would submit that earlier the applicant had approached this Court by means of Application u/s 482 No.25994 of 2019 (Dilshad Ali Khan And Another Vs State of U.P. And Another). It was disposed of by order dated 09.07.2019 with the following observations:
"However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid observations, this application is finally disposed off."
4. Since, the applicant has not made compliance of the aforesaid order for a long period of two years, no indulgence may be granted to the applicant.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the above observations made by the Court in jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may not oust the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, though technically, the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant may be correct and though the jurisdiction of the Court may not be ousted merely because the applicant had earlier approached this Court by means of application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., at the same time, the conduct of the applicant remains ever relevant for the purpose of granting anticipatory bail. In the present case, the applicant has not complied with the orders passed by this Court for a long period of more than two years. He did not abide by the process of law. Therefore, no indulgence is warranted. The interference prayed is declined.
7. Accordingly, the present application is rejected. However, in the event of regular bail application being filed at the appropriate stage, it is expected that the same may be decided as expeditiously as possible, without being prejudiced by any observation made in this order.
Order Date :- 22.12.2021 S.Chaurasia