The Allahabad High Court has granted Bail to Madan Gopal@ Madan Gopal Gaur, who is accused of cheating, on the ground of delay in framing charges.

A Single Bench of Justice Vikram D Chauhan passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Madan Gopal@ Madan Gopal Gaur.

This is the second bail application filed by the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by the Court by order dated 2.1.2023.

A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that since 13.9.2022 the applicant is regularly appearing before the trial court. However, till date charge has not been framed and general dates are being fixed.

Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment passed by Apex Court in R.D Upadhyay Vs State of A.P and others, 1996 (3) SCC 422. As per the counsel for the applicant the applicant is aged about 59 years.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the trial is not proceedings in the matter and the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in R.D Upadhyay (supra).

A.G.A does not dispute the factual matrix of the case as well as the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of R.D Upadhyay (supra).

It is to be seen that the applicant is in jail for more than one year. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on 2.1.2023. The applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 14.9.2022.

“A perusal of the ordersheet of the trial court demonstrates that the applicant is regularly appearing before the trial court. However, till date no charge has been framed and general dates regarding the presence of the applicant is being given. It is the duty of the prosecution to prosecute the accused person at the earliest. The delay defeats justice.

The Apex Court in the case of R.D Upadhyay (supra) has directed release on bail of the accused person who are charged with cheating after detention of more than one year.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of R.D Upadhyay (supra), nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail”, the Court observed while allowing the bail application.

The Court ordered that,

Let the applicant Madan Goptal @ Madan Gopal Gaur involved in Case under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C, Police Station Colonelganj, District Allahabad be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

v. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

vii. In the event, the applicant changes his residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about the new residential address in writing.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial without granting unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties.

The Allahabad High Court while allowing the bail application of an accused, said that cannot denied bail only on the ground of criminal history.

A Single Bench of Justice Vikram D Chauhan passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Sumit Awasthi.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail in various offences since 11.6.2015.

Counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of other criminal cases the applicant has been implicated in the case.

As per the allegations in the First Information Report, it is alleged that the applicant along with the other co-accused had been threatening the informant to resign from the earlier criminal proceedings and in this respect the co-accused has fired on the informant, however, no injury was sustained by the informant.

Counsel for the applicant submitted that the incident is of February 2021 and at that point of time the applicant was in jail and it is highly improbable that the applicant would have in any manner participated in the criminal offence.

Counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no evidence against the applicant except the criminal history which has formed the basis for the implication of the applicant in the case.

Counsel for the applicant further submitted that in the previous criminal history there is a dispute with the informant and as a result of the same, the forged and fabricated First Information Reports are being lodged against the applicant.

Counsel for the applicant also submitted that the criminal history of the applicant has been explained in the affidavit which are of 46 criminal cases. However, counsel for the applicant submits that the criminal history itself cannot be a ground for denial of bail when there is no evidence against the applicant in the case particularly when the applicant was in jail when the occurrence took place as per the First Information Report. Applicant is languishing in jail since 19.9.2022 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

Himanshu Mishra, counsel for the informant has opposed the bail application and submits that on the previous occasion there is a dispute with regard to Rs 12 crores being siphoned off. However, he does not dispute the fact that the aforesaid dispute is not within the four corners of the First Information Report and the dispute is with regard to previous offences. He does not dispute the fact that the applicant was in jail on the date of occurrence as stated in the First Information Report.

A.G.A for the State has opposed the bail and submits that the applicant has criminal history.

The Court said that,

It is to be seen that in the case the allegations with regard to firing have been made on the co-accused, Ravi. The applicant, as per the admitted case of the parties, was in jail since 2015 and the complicity of the applicant has been made on the basis of Section 120-B IPC.

A.G.A for the State and counsel for the informant has not been able to establish any material facts and circumstances which shows complicity of the applicant in the case. The applicant cannot be denied bail just on the ground that the applicant is having criminal history, more particularly, when there is no evidence against the applicant in the case.

AGA for the State has pointed out the criminal antecedents of the applicant. No material or circumstance has been brought to the notice of the Court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of witnesses in previous criminal cases.

The Court observed that,

In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicants in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

“It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by AGA for the State.

AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail”, the Court further observed while allowing the bail application.

The Court ordered that,

Let the applicant-Sumit Awasthi involved in Case under Sections 386, 307, 506 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Gujaini, District Kanpur Nagar be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

v. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

vii. In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about the new residential address in writing.

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

The Allahabad High Court in an interim relief to Congress MP Randeep Singh Surjewala in the 23-year-old damage to public property case, directed the Trial Court in Varanasi to provide copies of all the legible documents including the charge sheet as per Section 207 CrPC to him within seven days.

A Single Bench of Justice Vikram D Chauhan passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Randeep Singh Surjewala.

In the case, an application was moved by the petitioner, who is the accused for providing a legible copy of the chargesheet including the documents relied upon in compliance with the provisions of Section 207 CrPC. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the court concerned.

As per the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court on 17.4.2023 in paragraph 5 and 6 had directed for providing a legible copy of the chargesheet to the petitioner.

On 18.5.2023 a copy of the chargesheet was provided to the petitioner. However, under the provisions of Section 207 CrPC the chargesheet would also include the documents relied upon.

The primary submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the copies provided were not legible and in the spirit of the order dated 17.4.2023 of the Supreme Court the legible copy of the supporting documents should also have been provided.

Neeraj Tripathi, Additional Advocate General submitted that the copy of the chargesheet and the documents were supplied to the petitioner. However, as per the order of the Supreme Court dated 17.4.2023 the legible copies of the chargesheet were provided. He does not dispute the fact that the copies of the documents relied on by prosecution as per Section 207 Cr.P.C were not provided after passing of the order by the Supreme Court on 17.4.2023.

Additional Advocate General further submitted that he would have no objection in case the copy of the legible documents relied upon by the prosecution as per the chargesheet is provided to the petitioner. However, since the case is an old one, therefore, the proceedings before the court below may not be derailed by the petitioner.

Accused person is entitled to legible copies of the documents as per the provisions of Section 207 CrPC, the court observed.

Under the circumstances, in view of the stand taken by the State, it is hereby directed by the court that the trial court shall provide the copy of all the legible documents as per Section 207 CrPC within seven days to the petitioner.

It is informed by the counsel for the parties that the next date fixed in the matter before the court below is tomorrow i.e 9th June, 2023.

The High Court directed the trial court to adjourn the case for seven days from today and provide the legible copies to the petitioner.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on receipt of the legible copies, the petitioner would file the discharge application within the next seven days and the same may be decided in accordance with the direction of the Supreme Court dated 17.4.2023 and the order dated 20.3.2023.

Counsel for the petitioner assures the Court that the petitioner would participate in the proceedings before the court below and will not seek unnecessary adjournments.

“The petitioner shall be at liberty to file a discharge application within the next seven days. The trial court shall thereafter proceed in the matter as per the aforesaid orders dated 17.4.2023 and 20.3.2023.

Since the matter is very old, the court below shall take into consideration the length of the litigation and shall proceed with the case in accordance with law in a time bound manner’, the order reads.

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Court disposed of the petition.

The Allahabad High Court has allowed the bail application of the accused booked under the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act.

A Single Bench of Justice Vikram D Chauhan passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Ibran @ Sheru.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated. There is no independent witness of the recovery. There is no allegation of slaughter against the applicant. The procedure for seizure as provided under the Criminal Procedure Code has not been followed. There is no report that the meat recovered is beef.

It is further submitted by the counsel for the applicant that 30.5 kg of meat is said to have been recovered from the house of the co-accused, Ivran @ Sheru.

It is submitted that the applicant is a painter and was doing his job of painting in the house when the raid was conducted. There is no other evidence linking the applicant with the alleged recovery. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. The applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 10.03.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

A.G.A for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the factual matrix of the case.

It is submitted that U.P Act No 1 of 1956 is enacted to prohibit and prevent the slaughter of cows and its progeny in Uttar Pradesh. The applicant has been found to have committed an offence under the abovementioned act.

AGA for the State has not shown that the applicant has been previously convicted under the provisions of U.P Act No 1 of 1956.

No material has been shown by the AGA for the State to demonstrate that the applicant has slaughtered or caused to be slaughtered or offer or cause to be offered for slaughter a cow, bull or bullock in any place in Uttar Pradesh. The alleged act cannot be stated to come within the ambit of section 2(d) of U.P Act No 1 of 1956. There is no independent witness of the recovery. Mere possession of meat by itself cannot amount to committing, abetting, or attempting an offence under section 3 of the Act No 1 of 1956. No report of competent authority or authorised laboratory has been shown to demonstrate that the meat recovered is beef. The maximum sentence imposed by section 3 read with section 8 of U.P Act No 1 of 1956 is ten years.

The Court noted that,

No material circumstance has been shown to suggest that the applicant was selling or transporting or offering for sale or transport or cause to be sold or transported beef or beef products. No report of competent authority or authorised laboratory has been shown to demonstrate that the substance recovered is beef or beef product. There is no independent witness of recovery. The procedure prescribed under section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code has not been followed. The alleged recovery of substance has been made by police personnel. A case of false implication has been raised on behalf of the applicant.

AGA for the State has not shown any fact or circumstance which will amount to committing, abetting, or attempting an offence under section 5 of the Act No 1 of 1956. Even otherwise mere carrying of meat by any person, by itself cannot amount to sale or transport of beef or beef products unless it is shown by cogent and sufficient evidence that the substance recovered is beef.

In the case the prosecution has not demonstrated with cogent evidence that the substance recovered is beef or beef products. The maximum sentence imposed by section 5 read with section 8 of U.P Act No 1 of 1956 is ten years.

In view of the abovementioned, prima facie, the applicant is not guilty under the provisions of U.P Act No. 1 of 1956.

AGA for the State has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail.

The Court said that,

It is not the case of the State that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation or proceedings before the trial court.

The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51.

No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

The Court observed that,

It is a settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by AGA for the State.

AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.

“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail”, the Court further observed while allowing the bail application.

The Court ordered that,

Let the applicant-Ibran @ Sheru, involved in Case under Section 3/5/5-A/8 of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

v. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

vii. In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about the new residential address in writing.

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

The Allahabad High Court has stayed the ongoing departmental disciplinary proceedings against the police inspector, lodged in Fatehgarh Jail, Farrukhabad, on charges of dowry death of his wife for the same offence, and has sought a reply from the state government on the petition within three weeks.

A Single Bench of Justice Vikram D Chauhan passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Vivek Kumar Gupta.

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working on the post of Police Inspector and a criminal case being Case under Sections 302, 494, 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P Act has been lodged against the petitioner by his in-laws.

He submitted that the petitioner is in jail at present and as such, petitioner cannot participate in disciplinary proceedings which has also been opened by the respondent on the same ground.

It is submitted that the petitioner is working in the police department and the police department itself is prosecuting in the criminal case, as such, in case disciplinary proceedings are permitted to continue then the defence of the petitioner would be prejudiced in trial, specifically the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

According to the counsel for the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, disciplinary proceedings are required to be kept in abeyance till the decision of the criminal case.

He also submitted that the police department has already submitted a charge sheet before the Magistrate concerned.

The Court has granted three weeks’ time to file counter affidavits for the respondents.

“Till the next date of listing, the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in respect of the criminal offence mentioned above, shall remain stayed”, the Court ordered.

The Court has fixed the next hearing of the petition on May 19, 2023.