Ramjeet and others v. State of U.P. and another) which was disposed of

1. Heard learned counsel for the informant-applicant, Sri Saurabh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4, Shri Chandan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the material on record.

2. The instant bail cancellation application has been moved on behalf of the informant seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the accused-opposite party nos.2 to 4 namely Ramjeet, Munna, Farari alias Suresh in Case Crime No.110 of 2019 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 336, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Bhadohi, District Bhadohi.

3. Learned counsel for the informant-applicant has contended that the accused-opposite parties filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C No. 11996 of 2022 (Ramjeet and others Vs. State of U.P. and another) which was disposed of with an observation that the accused-opposite parties may apply for bail before the trial Court. He further submits that one of the accused namely, Jhallar @ Ram Naresh applied for bail before the trial Court which was rejected vide order dated 03.11.2022, thereafter, the said accused was granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.01.2023. Learned counsel further argued that private opposite parties instead of applying for regular bail moved anticipatory bail before the concerned trial Court which was allowed vide order dated 19.08.2023. Learned counsel next 2 BAILC No. 767 of 2023 argued that the plea for grant of anticipatory bail taken by the accused-opposite party nos.2 to 4 are false and fabricated. He further submits that while considering the anticipatory bail of the accused-opposite parties, the learned Sessions Court, Bhadohi did not consider the factual and legal aspect of the matter as well as injury report of the injured. He thus submits that in view of the aforesaid, the bail granted to the accused-opposite party no.2 is liable to be cancelled.

4. Learned A.G.A. did not dispute the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants, however learned counsel for the submissions the accused-opposite parties has opposed advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and argued that vide order dated 23.05.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. (482) Application No. 11996 of 2022, the co-ordinate Bench has observed that if the applicants (now the accused-opposite parties) feel, may approach the Court below for enlarging on bail or the police authorities resort to Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. as most of the alleged offence fall under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. He further submits that there was no specific direction for the accused- opposite parties to apply for regular bail and that the accused- opposite parties was at liberty to move bail and that no illegality has been committed by accused-opposite parties in approaching under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court. He further the accused-opposite parties after grant of argued anticipatory bail are continuously appearing before the trial Court and have not violated any of the condition imposed upon them. Learned counsel further argued that the trial is at the stage of 313 Cr.P.C. and therefore the instant bail cancellation application is liable to be rejected.

5. So far as the plea taken by learned counsel for the applicant that the accused-opposite parties filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C No. 11996 of 2022 (Ramjeet and others Vs. State of U.P. and another) which was disposed of with an observation that the accused-opposite parties may apply for bail before the trial Court and the accused-opposite parties instead of applying for bail moved anticipatory bail application before the trial Court, which was allowed, is concerned, this Court takes note of the fact that the order dated 23.05.2022 contains no direction for the accused-opposite parties to apply for regular bail. The order dated 23.05.2022 read as follows:- 3 BAILC No. 767 of 2023 lodgment of "Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. By way of this application, the applicants are four in number have challenged information report. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the opposite party no. 2 has lodged the F.I.R No. 110 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 336 I.P.C. against the applicants on 16.03.2019, alleging therein that the applicants were beating the Ratanjeet Yadav with sticks over the old rivalry and the matter of throwing stones at home. On hearing noise, Govind, Chanda and Anita came at the spot then applicants were also beaten and injured them, thereafter they went away abusing and threatening to kill them. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that alleged injured persons were examined their injuries on 21.06.2019 and the Investigating Officer of the case had also allegedly record the statement of opposite party no. 2 and other injured persons under section 161 Cr.P.C. in which they have supported the F.I.R. version. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the charge-sheet is submitted way back on 26.07.2019 and the cognizance is taken by the court below on 08.11.2019. The order taking cognizance and the charge-sheet is under challenge, while going through the order of cognizance it cannot be said that the cognizance has been wrongly taken. The matter has been pending since 08.11.2019. It is only in the year 2022 the accused have filed this application. The factual date will not permit this Court to entertain this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. It is right of accused to apply for bail, if yet no applied for bail. If the applicants feel, may approach the court below for enlarging on bail or the police authorities shall resort to Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. as most of the alleged offences fall under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. Section 41-A reads as fallow:- "1[41A. Notice of appearance before police officer.-- (1) 2[The police officer shall], in all cases where the 4 BAILC No. 767 of 2023 arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 41, issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice. (2) Where such a notice is issued to any person, it shall be the duty of that person to comply with the terms of the notice. (3) Where such person complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested. [(4) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may, subject to such orders as may have been passed by a competent Court in this behalf, arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice.]" With the application stands disposed of with liberty to the applicants to move an application before the learned Judge." these observations,

6. Thus it is evident upon perusal of the order dated 23.05.2022 that it was open for the applicants to approach the Court below for enlarging on bail or the police authorities shall resort to Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. as most of the alleged offences fall under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., and the accused-opposite parties instead of moving bail application, have applied for anticipatory bail which was granted to them by the trial Court vide order dated 23.05.2022, the accused-opposite parties have committed no illegality in availing the remedy lie before them in accordance with law. Furthermore learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any illegality in the order dated 23.05.2022 passed by the trial Court, while granting anticipatory bail so as to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the accused- opposite parties. Apart from the same, learned trial Court after considering the matter had granted anticipatory bail to the accused-opposite party nos.2 to 4 thus the entire aspect of therefore 5 BAILC No. 767 of 2023 there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the trial Court granting anticipatory bail.

7. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, has held that while deciding anticipatory bail, the Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

8. In the instant matter, the offence alleged is under Section 323, 504, 506, 336, 308 I.P.C. and the maximum punishment that may be awarded is less than seven years. Moreover, the trial Court while granting anticipatory bail to the opposite party nos.2 to 4 have considered the nature and gravity of offence, antecedent of accused etc. Further, keeping in mind that the trial is at the stage of 313 Cr.P.C., Therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court.

9.Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is bereft of merit and is rejected. (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) September 18, 2025 S.Ali/S. Mishra SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the informant-applicant, Sri Saurabh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4, Shri Chandan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the material on record.

2. The instant bail cancellation application has been moved on behalf of the informant seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the accused-opposite party nos.2 to 4 namely Ramjeet, Munna, Farari alias Suresh in Case Crime No.110 of 2019 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 336, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Bhadohi, District Bhadohi.

3. Learned counsel for the informant-applicant has contended that the accused-opposite parties filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C No. 11996 of 2022 (Ramjeet and others Vs. State of U.P. and another) which was disposed of with an observation that the accused-opposite parties may apply for bail before the trial Court. He further submits that one of the accused namely, Jhallar @ Ram Naresh applied for bail before the trial Court which was rejected vide order dated 03.11.2022, thereafter, the said accused was granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.01.2023. Learned counsel further argued that private opposite parties instead of applying for regular bail moved anticipatory bail before the concerned trial Court which was allowed vide order dated 19.08.2023. Learned counsel next 2 BAILC No. 767 of 2023 argued that the plea for grant of anticipatory bail taken by the accused-opposite party nos.2 to 4 are false and fabricated. He further submits that while considering the anticipatory bail of the accused-opposite parties, the learned Sessions Court, Bhadohi did not consider the factual and legal aspect of the matter as well as injury report of the injured. He thus submits that in view of the aforesaid, the bail granted to the accused-opposite party no.2 is liable to be cancelled.

4. Learned A.G.A. did not dispute the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants, however learned counsel for the submissions the accused-opposite parties has opposed advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and argued that vide order dated 23.05.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. (482) Application No. 11996 of 2022, the co-ordinate Bench has observed that if the applicants (now the accused-opposite parties) feel, may approach the Court below for enlarging on bail or the police authorities resort to Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. as most of the alleged offence fall under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. He further submits that there was no specific direction for the accused- opposite parties to apply for regular bail and that the accused- opposite parties was at liberty to move bail and that no illegality has been committed by accused-opposite parties in approaching under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court. He further the accused-opposite parties after grant of argued anticipatory bail are continuously appearing before the trial Court and have not violated any of the condition imposed upon them. Learned counsel further argued that the trial is at the stage of 313 Cr.P.C. and therefore the instant bail cancellation application is liable to be rejected.

5. So far as the plea taken by learned counsel for the applicant that the accused-opposite parties filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C No. 11996 of 2022 (Ramjeet and others Vs. State of U.P. and another) which was disposed of with an observation that the accused-opposite parties may apply for bail before the trial Court and the accused-opposite parties instead of applying for bail moved anticipatory bail application before the trial Court, which was allowed, is concerned, this Court takes note of the fact that the order dated 23.05.2022 contains no direction for the accused-opposite parties to apply for regular bail. The order dated 23.05.2022 read as follows:- 3 BAILC No. 767 of 2023 lodgment of "Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. By way of this application, the applicants are four in number have challenged information report. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the opposite party no. 2 has lodged the F.I.R No. 110 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 336 I.P.C. against the applicants on 16.03.2019, alleging therein that the applicants were beating the Ratanjeet Yadav with sticks over the old rivalry and the matter of throwing stones at home. On hearing noise, Govind, Chanda and Anita came at the spot then applicants were also beaten and injured them, thereafter they went away abusing and threatening to kill them. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that alleged injured persons were examined their injuries on 21.06.2019 and the Investigating Officer of the case had also allegedly record the statement of opposite party no. 2 and other injured persons under section 161 Cr.P.C. in which they have supported the F.I.R. version. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the charge-sheet is submitted way back on 26.07.2019 and the cognizance is taken by the court below on 08.11.2019. The order taking cognizance and the charge-sheet is under challenge, while going through the order of cognizance it cannot be said that the cognizance has been wrongly taken. The matter has been pending since 08.11.2019. It is only in the year 2022 the accused have filed this application. The factual date will not permit this Court to entertain this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. It is right of accused to apply for bail, if yet no applied for bail. If the applicants feel, may approach the court below for enlarging on bail or the police authorities shall resort to Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. as most of the alleged offences fall under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. Section 41-A reads as fallow:- "1[41A. Notice of appearance before police officer.-- (1) 2[The police officer shall], in all cases where the 4 BAILC No. 767 of 2023 arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 41, issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice. (2) Where such a notice is issued to any person, it shall be the duty of that person to comply with the terms of the notice. (3) Where such person complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested. [(4) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may, subject to such orders as may have been passed by a competent Court in this behalf, arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice.]" With the application stands disposed of with liberty to the applicants to move an application before the learned Judge." these observations,

6. Thus it is evident upon perusal of the order dated 23.05.2022 that it was open for the applicants to approach the Court below for enlarging on bail or the police authorities shall resort to Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. as most of the alleged offences fall under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., and the accused-opposite parties instead of moving bail application, have applied for anticipatory bail which was granted to them by the trial Court vide order dated 23.05.2022, the accused-opposite parties have committed no illegality in availing the remedy lie before them in accordance with law. Furthermore learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any illegality in the order dated 23.05.2022 passed by the trial Court, while granting anticipatory bail so as to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the accused- opposite parties. Apart from the same, learned trial Court after considering the matter had granted anticipatory bail to the accused-opposite party nos.2 to 4 thus the entire aspect of therefore 5 BAILC No. 767 of 2023 there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the trial Court granting anticipatory bail.

7. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, has held that while deciding anticipatory bail, the Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

8. In the instant matter, the offence alleged is under Section 323, 504, 506, 336, 308 I.P.C. and the maximum punishment that may be awarded is less than seven years. Moreover, the trial Court while granting anticipatory bail to the opposite party nos.2 to 4 have considered the nature and gravity of offence, antecedent of accused etc. Further, keeping in mind that the trial is at the stage of 313 Cr.P.C., Therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court.

9.Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is bereft of merit and is rejected. (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) September 18, 2025 S.Ali/S. Mishra SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad