Heard Sri Vijay Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State, Ms. Shameem Jahan, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
The present bail cancellation application has been filed with a prayer to cancel the bail granted to opposite party nos.2 by this Court, dated 02.12.2013 passed in Bail Application No.7668 of 2013.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that one Kamta Prasad was missing since 16.04.2013, then his wife, namely, Aneeta reported to the Police with the allegation for abduction with intention to kill her husband, therefore, FIR was lodged on 23.04.2013 as Case Crime No.233 of 2013, under Section 364 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh.He further submitted that applicant has also given an application in relation to missing of his father, namely, Ram Phikere to the Police Station-Kotwali, District Pratapgarh, on 21.04.2013. On 23.04.2013, it came into his knowledge that a body was put in at a well situated at Kamoorwa forest, then he informed to the Police and with the help of local people, Anchor was thrown in the well and two bodies were found and identified as one was Kamta Prasad and another was Ram Phikere (father of the applicant), and thereafter, on the written complaint of the applicant, FIR No.0233A of 2013, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh was lodged on 29.04.2013. He further submitted that two bodies were found at one place, therefore, investigation of Case Crime No.233 of 2013 (supra) and 233A of 2013 (supra) were clubbed and investigated by the Investigating Officer and charge-sheet was prepared on 29.07.2013 against eight persons, namely, Vikaram Singh (opposite party No.2), Dilip Singh @ Bablu, Mahesh Yadav, Raju Kha, Vijay Kumar Pandey, Ram Achal Verma, Anil Sharma and Rinku @ Shyam Bahadur.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that opposite party No.2 was arrested on 11.05.2013 and he moved bail application before the Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh and later on, same was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Pratapgarh, the same was rejected on 19.10.2013, and thereafter, opposite party No.2 has preferred his bail before this Court, bearing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7668 of 2013 and Dinesh Pratap s/o Shiv Nayak Singh r/o Village Bhadaw, Tehsil, Amethi, District-Sultanpur, was the deponent, claiming himself as a pairokar in the said case and also stated that he is well conversant with the facts and circumstances deposed in the bail application. In para-40 of the said bail application, he had categorically mentioned that opposite party No.2 has no criminal history at all and he has never been prosecuted in any case and his bail application was listed before this Court on 02.12.2013 and considering this fact that the opposite party No.2 does not have any criminal history as well as parity of the co-accused persons, bail was granted by this Court on 02.12.2013. He further submitted that on the date, when the bail application of opposite party No.2 was allowed by this Court, the opposite party No.2 was having criminal history of three cases i.e Case Crime No.149 of 2007, under Section 147, 323, 504, 506, 352 I.P.C., Case Crime No.142 of 2011, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Case Crime No.20 of 2011, under Sections 143/34 I.P.C., but this fact was not brought into the notice of the Court, therefore, the present application is liable to be allowed merely on the ground of concealment of fact in his bail application in relation to the criminal history. He further submitted that opposite party No.2 tried to threat the applicant for not giving the evidence in the present case and NCR No.395 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Lalganj, District Pratapgarh was lodged on 28.12.2018, therefore, application is liable to be allowed and bail granted to opposite party No.2 passed in Bail Application No.7668 of 2013, is liable to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has submitted that opposite party No.2 is an innocent person and due to village politics, he was dragged in the aforesaid three cases as all the cases are petty offences and he was on bail, but in the present case, opposite party No.2 was implicated only on the basis of suspicion. She further submitted that opposite party No.2 never gave any threat to the applicant or any other witnesses. She also stated that opposite party No.2 was taken into custody in the present case on 11.05.2013, therefore, Dinesh Pratap was doing pairavi for moving bail application before this Court and he was not aware about three petty cases lodged against the applicant. She further submitted that it was bound in duty of the Police concerned to provide the criminal antecedent of opposite party No.2, at the time of placing the instructions before this Court and no any intention of pairokar for suppressing the facts. She further submitted that opposite party No.2 has been implicated by the Police on the behest of political leader only with intention to show good work and in the present case, informant of Case Crime No.233 of 2013 as well as applicant of the present case have already examined before the trial Court as PW-1 and PW-2. She further submitted that one another witness of fact, namely, Jeet Lal has also examined before the trial court and he never reported to the trial court in relation to threatening to witness by the opposite party No.2, therefore, present application is liable to the rejected and the trial court may be directed to expedite the trial of the present case.
Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of bail order, dated 02.12.2013, counter affidavit, statement of PW-1, namely, Aneeta Devi, PW-2- Girish Chandra Patel @ Kamlesh (applicant), PW-3 Jeet lal and contents given by deponent in Bail Application No.7668 of 2013.
It is evident that in the Bail Application No.7668 of 2013, deponent was Dinesh Pratap who sworn the affidavit being a pairokar of the opposite party No.2, who was in jail and criminal antecedent was not disclose, and stated that opposite opposite party No.2 was not having criminal antecedent.
As a general direction was issued on 10.04.2019 in Bail Application No.3690 of 2019 by this Court and directed that the deponent in every bail application must disclose the relation with the accused persons in the affidavit and also disclose his/her criminal antecedent and without disclosing the criminal antecedent of the accused/applicant, Registry will not accept the bail application, then the Circular No.34, dated 01.05.2019 was issued by the Senior Registrar of this Court. A similar view was also taken by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Uday Pratap @ Dau Vs. State of U.P. passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.43160 of 2020 and court below was directed to attend the issue of criminal antecedent(s) of accused-persons while deciding bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and give a complete detail of criminal antecedent(s), if any, of the applicant(s)/accused before them.
In the present case, bail application of opposite party No.2 was filed in the year 2013 by the pairokar, who is the resident of District Sultanpur and applicant is a resident of Pratapgarh, therefore, there might be possible that he could not aware about criminal antecedent of opposite party no.2, hence, he stated that he does not have criminal antecedent. On 01.05.2019, the Circular was issued by Senior Registrar that in every bail application, the deponent will explain its relation accused/applicant and also disclose the criminal antecedent. As in the present case, bail order was passed on 02.12.2013. In such circumstances, no case for interference is made out.
Accordingly, the present bail cancellation application is hereby rejected.
The trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the present case expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
The Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh is directed to ensure the presence of witnesses before the court below.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the authority concerned for necessary compliance, forthwith.
(Rajeev Singh, J.) Order Date :- 19.8.2021 Amit/-