The Allahabad High Court has dismissed the bail application of Jitendra Jurail alias Sandeep, who had appeared in a competitive examination in place of someone else.

A Single Bench of Justice Sameer Jain passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Jitendra Jurail Alias Sandeep.

The application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Sections 6/10 The Uttar Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, Police Station Etmaddaula, District Agra, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

An FIR of the case was lodged on 18.02.2024 against the applicant and according to the FIR, the applicant appeared in a competitive examination in place of one Sandeep.

Counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the matter and actually applicant is also known as ‘Sandeep’ and he appeared in the examination in the name of Sandeep but in his Aadhar Card his name has been mentioned as ‘Jitendra Jurail’.

He further submitted that applicant and Sandeep both are the same person.

He also submitted that the applicant does not have any criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the matter 19.02.2024.

Per contra, A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that ridiculous and absurd defence has been taken by the applicant, therefore, considering the nature of allegation and the fact that due to such offence now the sanctity of the competitive examination is at stake, the bail application should be dismissed.

“However, as per counsel for the applicant, applicant is the person, who is also having nick name ‘Sandeep’ and he himself appeared in the examination as ‘Sandeep’ but the defence taken by the applicant appears to be absurd as there is no material on record including Aadhar Card and documents of the applicant, which can show that applicant was also known as ‘Sandeep’, therefore, prima facie, allegation made against him appears to be true.

Further, the applicant is in jail in the matter only since 19.02.2024. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail”, the Court observed while dismissing the bail application.

The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to one Riyaz alias Ovaisi, who has been accused of abusing Lord Rama on Facebook.

A Single Bench of Justice Sameer Jain passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Riyaz Alias Ovaisi.

The application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case under Sections 153-A, 295-A, 505(2) I.P.C and Section 67 I.T Act, Police Station Sureri, District Jaunpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

As per allegation, applicant through his facebook messenger abused Lord Shri Ram.

Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and he never through his facebook messenger abused Lord Shri Ram.

He further submitted that the applicant is a law abiding citizen of this country and he is having faith in Hindu religion although he is Muslim.

He also submitted that actually his friend used his facebook account.

He said that even when this fact was revealed to the applicant then he tendered unconditional apology before the police station.

He further said that the secular fabric of this country is not so weak, which can be disturbed by such type of fake messages.

He also said that the applicant does not have any criminal history to his credit and he has been in jail in the matter since 28.01.2024.

Per contra, A.G.A opposed the prayer for grant of bail but could not dispute the fact that the applicant is not having any criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the matter since 28.01.2024.

“However, from the record, it reflects that as per facebook messenger account of the applicant, an abusive message was sent insulting Lord Shri Ram but it appears that applicant is not having any criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the matter since 28.01.2024.

Further, all the alleged offences are punishable with a maximum punishment of three years.

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail”, the Court observed while allowing the bail application.

The Court ordered that,

Let the applicant- Riyaz Alias Ovaisi, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and antisocial activity.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before the Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

The Allahabad High Court has granted conditional bail to SP leader Mukesh Siddharth, accused of giving objectionable speech.

A Single Bench of Justice Sameer Jain passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Mukesh Siddharth.

The application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case under Sections 143, 153, 153A, 115, 353, 505(2), 186, 506 IPC and u/s 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Meerut, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

An FIR of the case was lodged against the applicant and according to the FIR, the applicant gave objectionable speech.

Counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of false allegation applicant has been accused in the matter and applicant is having political background, therefore, he has been made accused in the matter.

He further submitted that even from the perusal of the FIR it reflects that it is based on false facts.

He also submitted that apart from the case applicant has criminal history of three other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the bail application and out of three cases in one case final report has been submitted and in two cases applicant is on bail.

He said that the applicant has been in jail in the matter since 8.1.2024.

Per contra, AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by the counsel for the applicant.

“From the perusal of the FIR, it reflects that argument advanced by the counsel for the applicant that the FIR of the case is based on general allegation and cannot be completely ruled out.

Further, considering the allegations made against the applicant all the alleged offences appear to be punishable upto seven years.

Further, however, the applicant is also having criminal history in three other cases but it appears that out of three cases in one case the final report has been submitted and in two cases the applicant is on bail and he is in jail in the matter since 8.1.2024.

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail”, the Court observed while allowing the bail application.

The Court ordered that,

Let the applicant- Mukesh Siddharth, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and antisocial activity.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before the Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

The Allahabad High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Satish Chandra Gupta, a London (U.K)-based accused in the crores rupees scam.

A Single Bench of Justice Sameer Jain passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application filed by Satish Chander Gupta.

The anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant to enlarge him on anticipatory bail in Sessions Trial under Section 447 of the Companies Act arising out of Complaint U/ s 439 (2) R/W, Section 436 (1)(a) & (d) R/W Proviso to Section 212(6) R/ W 212 (14) of the Companies Act, 2013 R/W 621 (1) of the Companies Act, 1956 pending in the Court of Special Judge (Companies Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar.

At the very outset, R.P.S Chauhan, counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India raised following preliminary objections:-

(a) applicant directly approached this Court for his pre arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. without approaching the court concerned under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

(b) applicant is a resident of the United Kingdom (U.K) and is residing in the U.K and not in India, therefore, there is no apprehension of his arrest.

Counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India submitted that applicant straight-way filed instant anticipatory bail application before the Court without approaching the court concerned and no special circumstances has been disclosed by him in this regard, therefore, considering the law laid down by the Full Bench of Five Judges of this Court in the case of Ankit Bharti and others Vs State of U.P and another 2020 (3) ADJ 575, the instant anticipatory bail application is not maintainable.

He further submitted that admittedly applicant is the resident of London (U.K.) and investigation of the case has already been concluded and on the basis of the complaint, he has been summoned and till date no warrant has been issued against him, therefore, applicant is not having any belief of his arrest, therefore, on this ground also the instant anticipatory bail application is not maintainable.

He also submitted that if the applicant is released on anticipatory bail then under the pretext of order of pre-arrest bail, he will never return to India for trial. He further submits that no blanket protection can be given to the applicant under Section 438 CrPC.

He further submitted that there are several examples in the past, if an accused once fled from India he never turned up to face the legal proceedings.

Against the preliminary objections raised by the counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that from perusal of the provisions of Section 438 CrPC it is apparent that anticipatory bail application can be filed either before the court of sessions or before the Court, therefore, if applicant opted to file the anticipatory bail application directly before the Court then he did not commit any illegality and it cannot be said that his anticipatory bail application is not maintainable.

The Court noted that,

From the record, it reflects that a criminal complaint was filed against the applicant and several others under the provisions of Companies Act. Applicant, is the accused in the complaint and as per allegation he was Ex Director in a Foreign Entity and he also connived with other entities in running of fraudulent/abusive merchanting trade business and thus caused huge losses of crores of rupees to the bank and is liable to be punished for offence under Section 447 of Companies Act, 2013.

Five Judges Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ankit Bharti (supra) held, the anticipatory bail application can be filed before this Court directly but only in special circumstances and special circumstances must necessarily exist and be established as such before jurisdiction of the Court is invoked directly.

As per five judges Full Bench of the Court an application for pre-arrest bail can only be entertained by this Court directly in only exceptional circumstances and not in routine manner and for entertaining such application directly special circumstances must exist.

In case at hand, in the entire anticipatory bail application, applicant did not disclose any special circumstances why he directly approached this Court without approaching the court concerned under Section 438 Cr.P.C, however, in the supplementary affidavit dated 26.11.2023 applicant averred that in view of the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C there is no bar if applicant directly files anticipatory bail application before the Court. In view of the Court, it is not a special circumstance on the basis of which, the instant anticipatory bail application can be entertained directly by the Court.

Further, applicant is the resident of London (U.K) and as per the view expressed by the Single Judge of the Court in the case of Vinod Kumar (supra), which was approved by the Full Bench of the Court in the case of Ankit Bharti (supra) if an accused resides outside the concerned jurisdiction of sessions judge, then he can file anticipatory bail application directly before the Court if faces threat of arrest. Even five judges of the full Bench of the Court in case of Ankit Bharti (supra) held that such application must rest on strong foundation with regard to apprehension of arrest. Therefore, threat of arrest of the applicant is necessary for maintainability of his anticipatory bail application directly before the Court.

The second objection of the Union of India is also with regard to belief of arrest of the applicant. Therefore, the core issue is whether the applicant is having belief in his arrest.

In the case at hand, admittedly the applicant is not residing in India and he is resident of London (U.K). The investigation of the case has already been concluded and one complaint applicant was summoned along with others and till date no warrants have been issued against him. Therefore, the question is whether the applicant still has belief in his arrest.

“In the case of Vijay Babu (supra) it appears that the investigation of the case was pending, therefore, the Single Judge of the Kerala High Court observed in that context that due to the advancement in investigative technology and communication, the various agencies of investigation could even arrest a person outside the India but in case at hand, investigation has already been concluded and after filing of complaint till date only summons have been issued against the applicant. Therefore, prima facie in the matter it appears, there is no apprehension of the arrest of applicant who resides in London (U.K).

Further, the Court finds force in the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India that if blanket protection is given to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C then possibility cannot be ruled out that he will never return to India.

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, both the preliminary objections raised by Union of India are well founded and instant anticipatory bail application is not maintainable”, the Court further observed while rejecting the bail application.

The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail application of an ‘Ojha’ (exorcist) for allegedly raping a 15-year-old girl under the pretext to provide treatment to her through religious methods.

A Single Bench of Justice Sameer Jain passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Hanuman Ram.

The bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case under Sections 376 (3) and 506 IPC and Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Balua, District Chandauli during pendency of the trial.

FIR of the case was lodged on 13.7.2023 against the applicant and according to the FIR, due to bad health of his daughter aged about 15 years informant invited the applicant, who was “Ojha” and under the pretext of religious ceremony he committed rape with her daughter.

Counsel for the applicant submitted that entire allegation made against the applicant is totally false and baseless and actually applicant and informant are close relatives and informant has taken loan from the applicant and only due to non-payment of loan some dispute arose between both of them and thereafter informant lodged FIR of the case agaisnt the applicant on the basis of false allegation of rape.

He further submitted that as the victim is minor aged about 15 years and, therefore, she under the pressure of her parents started making allegation of rape against the applicant.

He also submitted that the story narrated by the victim does not appear to be convincing.

Counsel for the applicant said that medical report also does not support the allegation of rape.

He further said that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history and in the matter he has been in jail since 14.7.2023.

Per contra, AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant has misused his position and under the pretext to provide treatment of the victim by way of religious ceremony, he influenced the victim and thereafter he committed rape with her and this fact is evident from her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC.

AGA further submitted that the victim is hardly a 15 years old girl and, therefore, the applicant should not be released on bail.

“Considering the fact that applicant is ‘Ojha’ and he under the pretext to provide treatment by religious way committed rape with the victim, who was aged about 15 years when she was alone with him in the room, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail”, the Court further observed while rejecting the bail application.

The Allahabad High Court has dismissing the application seeking cancellation of bail, said that the law with regard to cancellation of bail is also settled that it is easy to reject a bail application but it is very difficult to cancel the bail already granted and for cancellation of bail very overwhelming and cogent circumstances are necessary.

A Single Bench of Justice Sameer Jain passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Cancellation Application filed by Santosh Singh.

The bail cancellation application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to cancel the bail of opposite party no 2 already granted by court concerned vide order dated 30.8.2023 in Case under Sections 376(3), 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Khaga, District Fatehpur.

FIR of the case was lodged by the applicant against opposite party no 2 on 17.6.2023 and according to the FIR, on 10.6.2023 at about 5.00 PM in the evening opposite party no.2 enticed away the daughter of applicant aged about 14 years and next day in the morning at about 5.30 AM informant i.e applicant received a phone call from neghbouring village Gopalpur that his daughter is in the village Gopalpur and thereafter daughter of the informant, i.e, applicant has taken to the Police Station and on the way his daughter informed that opposite party no 2 abducted her and in the jungle he committed rape with her throughout the night.

After registration of the FIR, investigation was commenced and during investigation opposite party no 2 was arrested and thereafter he applied for bail before the court concerned. On 30.8.2023 the court granted bail to him.

Counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is the informant of the case and court concerned granted bail to opposite party no 2 in heinous crime like rape.

He further submitted that daughter of the applicant was a child below 18 years of age and she in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C and 164 Cr.P.C categorically stated that opposite party no 2 committed rape with her but in spite of that court concerned enlarged the opposite party no 2 on bail.

He also submitted that from the perusal of bail granting order dated 30.8.2023 it appears that while granting bail to opposite party no 2 the court concerned did not even consider the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 CrPC and 164 CrPC.

He said that that from the perusal of the medical report of the victim, it appears that she sustained abrasion on left cheek and on both hands and Doctor also opined that there are signs of use of force but the court concerned also did not consider the medical report of the victim and released the opposite party no 2 on bail.

He further said that considering the seriousness of the allegation made against opposite party no 2 and nonconsideration of relevant material available on record, bail granted to opposite party no 2 should be cancelled.

AGA appearing on behalf of the State also submitted that it is a case of rape upon the minor girl, who was child under the provisions of POCSO Act and she in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C and 164 Cr.P.C stated that opposite party no 2 committed rape with her and the Doctor also noted the sign of use of force, therefore, bail granted to opposite party no 2 should be cancelled.

The Court observed that,

The main contention raised on behalf of the applicant and the AGA is that while granting bail to the opposite party no 2 court concerned failed to even consider the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 CrPC and 164 CrPC.

They further submitted that even during medical examination the Doctor noticed abrasion on the cheek and hands of the victim and Doctor also opined that there are signs of use of force and this aspect was also not considered by the court concerned.

In case at hand, after perusing the bail granting order dated 30.8.2023 passed by the court concerned it cannot be said that on irrelevant factors the court concerned granted bail to opposite party no 2.

However, it reflects that while granting bail the statements of victim recorded during investigation and her medical report could not be discussed but in my view even if some relevant materials available on record could not be discussed/considered while granting bail to the accused then also on this ground bail granted to the accused should not be automatically cancelled and for cancellation of bail it is necessary to consider the effect of non consideration of material available on record.

In the matter, no doubt victim in her both the statements recorded during investigation stated against opposite party no 2 but from the perusal of the bail granting order dated 30.8.2023 it appears that even the Investigating Officer raised doubts on the story narrated by the victim and the informant and court concerned also considered the fact that FIR of the case was lodged after seven days and, therefore, even if the court concerned failed to consider the statements of the victim recorded during investigation then also it cannot be said that opposite party no 2 was not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Further, however, the court concerned also did not discuss the fact that at the time of medical examination abrasions were found on the cheek and hands of the victim and Doctor also opined, there are signs of use of force but from the perusal of the medical report of the victim it appears that victim was medically examined on 19.6.2023, i.e, after nine days of the alleged rape and, therefore, merely on the basis of abrasions noted by the Doctor at the time of her medical examination it cannot be said that these abrasions were sustained during alleged rape as she might have sustained these minor/small abrasions even subsequently in some other manner.

Further, no doubt in bail granting order the court concerned did not discuss the material available on record including statements of victim and her medical report but from the bail granting order it reflects that the entire material was perused before granting bail.

Further, in the case at hand, apart from the fact that in view of the court concerned prosecution story appears to be unconvincing the another aspect is that FIR of the case was lodged after seven days on the application moved by applicant dated 13.6.2023 and a day before, ie 12.6.2023 opposite party no 2 had lodged an FIR against him and others and, therefore, possibility at this stage cannot be ruled out that due to this enmity next day applicant moved an application for lodging of the FIR against opposite party no 2.

“Personal liberty of a person is the most cherished fundamental right provided under the Constitution of India and personal liberty of a person should not be easily curtailed and for curtailment of personal liberty very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary. In case of cancellation of bail the court has to extinguish the personal liberty which has been earlier granted and therefore, the court in casual manner without in depth examination of the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot allow such application for cancellation of bail. While dealing with the bail cancellation application the Court must be circumspect in cancelling the bail already granted.

Further, there is no allegation that opposite party no 2 after being released on bail is either threatening the applicant or victim or is trying to tamper the prosecution evidence”, the Court further observed while dismissing the application.

The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to the accused of murdering by axe in a family dispute.

A Single Bench of Justice Sameer Jain passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Kallu.

The application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case under Sections 302, 504, 34 IPC, Police Station- Puramufti, District- Prayagraj, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

The FIR of the case was lodged against applicant and two others and according to the FIR, due to family dispute, on 23.12.2021 at about 9:00 p.m in the night some dispute arose between applicant and husband of the informant and applicant gave axe blow on the head of the husband of informant and due to that he died at spot.

It is further mentioned in the FIR that after hearing noise, an informant along with her jeth arrived at the spot and tried to save the deceased.

Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is the real brother of the deceased and only due to property dispute, he has been accused in the matter.

He further submitted that nobody could witness the real incident and even according to the informant, she along with her jeth arrived at spot after hearing the noise and similar statement was given by her in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and even from the statement of the jeth of the informant namely Chaube Lal, it appears that he also arrived at spot after the incident.

He also submitted that although, as per the allegation, applicant gave axe blow on the head of the deceased but post- mortem report suggests that he sustained three injuries and injury no 1 is lacerated wound of 1×1 c.m dimension on the left side of forehead and according to the doctor, he died due to this injury.

He said that axe is a sharp-edged weapon, therefore, it appears that he sustained this injury in some other manner and subsequently due to enmity, applicant has been roped in the matter along with others.

He further said that the applicant does not have any criminal history and he has been in jail since 01.01.2022 i.e for more than one and half years.

Per contra, AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is the brother of the deceased and as per the allegation, he gave axe blow on the head of the deceased and post-mortem report also corroborates that deceased died due to head injury but could not dispute the fact that even from the FIR and statements of both the witnesses, it appears that informant and witness Choube Lal arrived at spot subsequently after hearing the noises and axe is a sharp edged weapon and deceased died due to lacerated wound sustained by him on his head.

“However, as per the allegation, due to assault made by the applicant on the head of the deceased through axe, he died but post-mortem report of the deceased suggests that he sustained three injuries, injury no 1 is lacerated wound of 1×1 c.m dimension on his head, injury no 2 is multiple abraded contusion and injury no 3 is incised wound skin deep and according to the doctor, deceased died due to injury no 1 and, therefore, I find force in the argument advanced by the counsel for the applicant that at this stage, prima facie it appears that deceased died due to injury caused by blunt object not by axe, which is sharp edged weapon.

Further, from the perusal of the record, it reflects that there are two witnesses, informant and her jeth and it appears that both arrived at spot after the incident.

Further, the applicant does not have any criminal history and he has been in jail since 01.01.2022 i.e for more than one and half years.

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view the applicant is entitled to be released on bail”, the Court observed while allowing the bail application.

The Court ordered that,

Let the applicant- Kallu be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and antisocial activity.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before the Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

The Rajasthan High Court has disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking direction to the respondents to sou motu disclose all tender related documents (including Request for proposal, Notice Inviting Bid (NIB), all scope of work, terms and conditions, minutes of prebid meetings, all technical & financial bids, documents submitted by successful bidder, all work orders, work completion certificates/documents, payment sanctions, minute of meetings of all   purchase committee and sanction of budget) of tenders of all Government Departments, All state Government undertaking, and Government Corporations on their website within a period of one week of Generation of the document.

The PIL filed by Public Against Corruption further seeks directions to the respondents to fully compliance with Section 17 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act 2012 otherwise, the tender must be automatically stand canceled.

In compliance to the notice issued by the Court, reply has been filed wherein it is clearly stated that the provisions as contained in Section 17 of the The Rajasthan Transparency Public Procurement Act, 2012 are being fully complied with. The documents are being regularly uploaded on the State Public Procurement Portal. The instructions issued in this regard have also been mentioned and copies thereof have been appended along with reply.  

In light of the above, the Jaipur Division Bench of Chief Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sameer Jain is of the view that the prayers made in the petition have been fully addressed and have been complied with. 

“A direction in any case is issued to the respondents to adhere to the mandate of Statute and follow the same”, the Bench directed.

The Rajasthan High Court imposed a Cost of Rs 20,000 and dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), which is a second one as has been preferred by the petitioners on the plea that the petrol pump which has been allotted to the private respondents  does not fulfill the mandate of the statute as the required distance between the petrol pump as also the locality is not as per the requirement.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sameer Jain noted that the petitioners have earlier filed petition in 2022, which came up for consideration before Division Bench of the Court when order dated September 12, 2022, was passed which read as follows:-
“After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition. Only prayer has been made by him that a liberty may be granted to the petitioners to submit a representation to the respondents pointing out their grievance, as agitated in the writ petition. 

This writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid. If a representation is filed by the petitioners pointing out their grievance as agitated in this writ petition within two weeks from today, same shall be decided within four weeks thereafter in accordance with law.

Even thereafter if the petitioners feel that any grievance subsists, they shall be free to file a fresh writ petition before this Court challenging the order passed on their representation.

In light of the above, the Bench is of the considered view that the present petition is not maintainable as there is already a direction issued by this Court with regard to the grievance as has been highlighted by the petitioner.

Directions have also been issued for submitting representation which the petitioners states stand already filed but a decision has not been taken thereon.

A time frame for considering the said representation and deciding by the Collector had also been specified. 

“The present writ petition being misconceived stands dismissed with Rs 20,000 cost to be deposited by the petitioners in the Rajasthan High Court, Bar Association, Jaipur,” the order read.

The Allahabad High Court has allowed the bail application of Faheem Khan, accused of culpable homicide not amounting to murder in Bareilly’s Nawabganj police station.

A Single Bench of Justice Sameer Jain passed this order while hearing a Criminal misc Bail Application filed by Faheem Khan.

The application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case under Sections 304, 452, 147, 323, 34 IPC, Police Station- Nawabganj, District Bareilly, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed by co-ordinate bench of the Court order dated 1.9.2022 passed in Criminal Misc Bail Application and when the Court, who rejected the first bail application of the applicant, released the instant second bail application then the matter is listed before the bench as the bench is dealing with the matter after the order of the Chief Justice.

Counsel for the applicant submitted that although, this is the second bail application of the applicant and on 1.9.2022, the first bail application of the applicant was dismissed and at the time of rejecting the first bail application of the applicant, the coordinate bench of the Court observed that although, in the FIR general role has been attributed to all the accused persons but in their statements witnesses gave specific role to the applicant of causing head injury to the deceased but at the time of deciding first bail application of the applicant, full and correct facts could not be placed before the Court.

He further submitted that admittedly in the FIR only general role has been attributed to all the accused persons and from the perusal of the statements of all the witnesses including informant, it appears that although, they stated that applicant tossed the head of the deceased on the wall several times but they further stated that thereafter other accused persons also tossed him on the wall and thereafter all the accused persons tossed the deceased on the ground, therefore, from the statements of the witnesses, it appears that applicant is not the only accused, who tossed the head of the deceased on the wall and the ground but all the accused persons tossed the head of the deceased on the wall and the ground.

He also submitted that from the perusal of the statement of the doctor, which also could not be placed at the time of first bail application, it appears that deceased did not sustain any visible injury and this fact completely belies the statements of the witnesses, therefore, considering this fact, applicant may be released on bail.

He said that all the accused persons have already been enlarged on bail and in view of the alleged eyewitnesses, the case of the applicant is at par with them.

Per contra, AGA as well as counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail but could dispute the fact that from the statements of the eye-witnesses it appears that there is allegation against the other accused persons also that they caused head injury to the deceased along with the applicant and doctor in his statement categorically stated that no external injury was found on the body of the deceased.

“Although, this is the second bail application but at the time of deciding first bail application, the co-ordinate bench of the Court categorically stated that as specific role of causing head injury has been attributed to the applicant in the statements of the witnesses, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail but from the statements of the alleged eye-witnesses, it appears that they also made allegation against other accused persons and it cannot be reflected from their statements that applicant alone was liable for the head injury of the deceased and it appears that full and correct facts could not be placed before the Court at the time of deciding first bail application of the applicant.

Further, from the perusal of the statement of the doctor, which has been annexed in the second bail application, it appears that the deceased did not sustain any visible injury and this fact also could not be placed before the Court at the time of deciding first bail application.

Further, all the other accused persons have already been released on bail and in view of the statements of the alleged eye-witnesses, the case of the applicant is at par with them. Therefore, from the discussion made above, in my view the applicant is entitled to be released on bail”, the Court observed while allowing the bail application.

The Court ordered that,

Let the applicant- Faheem Khan be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and antisocial activity.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before the Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.