Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48479 of 2018
Applicant :- Sharda Prasad Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri A.R.Chaurasia, learned AGA for the State.
On a query being made by learned counsel for the applicant as to why the present bail application has been filed before this Court though the cause of action of the present case is at District Pratapgarh, to which learned counsel for the applicant could not give satisfactory reply and stated that the bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Anti Corruption Act), Court No.5, Gorakhpur vide order dated 17.11.2018 who has jurisdiction to hear the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act of District Pratapgarh.
But, the explanation given by learned counsel for the applicant is not at all acceptable in view of the full Bench judgment of this Court passed in the case of Paritosh Kumar vs. Union of India through C.B.I., A.C.B Lucknow and others in Crl. Misc. 482 Cr.P.C. Application No. 7681 of 2012 decided on 10.10.2013.
It further transpires from Annexure-7 and 8 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that the applicant along with co-accused Badri Narayan Singh and others has filed a Misc. Bench No.27678 of 2018 before the Lucknow Bench of this Court challenging the FIR of the present case in which the prayer for quashing the FIR was rejected on 26.9.2018 and the Court has further called upon an explanation from the State Government as to why the prosecution for sanction of the applicant and co-accused persons was granted only on 18.11.2016 vide order dated 30.10.2018 and the said matter is still pending before the Court at Lucknow Bench as the same has been posted for 27.2.2019. Hence, it is evident that the applicant was conscious of the fact that cause of action of the present case is at District Pratapgarh and the present bail application ought to have been filed before the Lucknown Bench of this Court.
In view of the same, as prayed by learned counsel for the applicant the present bail application is dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file a fresh at Lucknow Bench.
Seeing the said act and conduct of the applicant which amounts to forum hunting, the Court wanted to impose a cost on him for filing the present bail application before this Court having full knowledge that the cause of action arose at district Pratapgarh but taking into account that the applicant is languishing in jail, the Court drops the said idea with a strict warning to the applicant not to repeat such act in future.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 18.12.2018 NS