Court No. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3850 of 2019
Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kumar Dave,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1 and perused the record with the assistance of leaned counsel for the parties.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to direct the court concerned to release the applicant on bail after furnishing fresh bail bond to the satisfaction of court concerned under newly added section 308 IPC in Case Crime No. 508 of 2014, S.T. No.222 of 2017, under sections 323, 504, 506, 325, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Rudhauli, District -Basti, pending in the court of VIth Additional Session Judge, Basti.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that NCR was lodged as NCR No.68/14, under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. at P.S. Rudhauli, District Basti against the applicants. Pursuant to aforesaid NCR, the applicants were granted bail under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants were already on bail during pendency of the investigation of the aforesaid case under section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. by order dated 24.6.2014 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and thereafter by adding section 325 I.P.C., the applicants were again granted bail by order dated 27.11.2014 and 11.3.2015. All the aforesaid bail orders are appended as Annexure 13 to the application. It is further submitted that after dismissing the discharge application, a date was fixed by the court concerned on 25.09.2018 to frame charges against the applicants but later on an application moved on behalf of opposite party no.2 mentioning that the applicants are not on bail under section 308 I.P.C. on which the trial court called comment from the public prosecutor. Lastly, it is submitted that since the applicants have already been granted bail in same case crime number, therefore, liberty should be given to them to furnish fresh bail bond under newly added section and suitable direction be issued to the court concerned to permit the applicants to remain on bail on furnishing fresh bail bond by the applicants to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1 opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted that there is no statutory provision under Cr.P.C. for permitting the accused to remain on bail under the newly added section only on furnishing fresh bail bond or or same bail bond.
I have gone through the entire record including the impugned order.
Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the prayer of the applicants made in the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be granted because in this case, nature of offence has been altered to and aggravated from minor offence to major offence. It is well settled by the Apex Court in case of Prahlad Singh Bhathi Vs. N.C.T., Delhi and another 2001 (42) ACC 903 that with the change nature of the offence, the accused becomes dis-entitled to liberty granted to him or her in relation to minor offence, if the offence is altered for an aggravated crime. The Apex Court further held that in such case the accused shall apply the regular bail before the concerned trial court and the same shall be decided and disposed of on its merit keeping in view the proposition of law as laid down in the said judgment.
In view of above observation, I find that the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit, it is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.1.2019/SKD