WWW.LIVELAW.IN Chief Justice's Court Case :- BAIL No. - 3584 of 2017 Applicant :- State Of U.P. ( Major B.C. ) Opposite Party :- Gayatri Prasad Prajapati And Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Dilip B. Bhosale,Chief Justice Mentioned not on Board. Heard Mr. V.K. Shahi, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Anurag Verma, Additional Government Advocate. By this application, the applicant-State seeks cancellation of bail granted to all three respondents vide order dated 25.4.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Lucknow, in Case Crime No. 29 of 2017, registered under Sections 376D/376/511/504/506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, at P.S. Gautam Palli, District Lucknow. It appears that pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court dated 17.2.2017 in Writ Petition (s) (Criminal) No (s). 160/2016, an FIR came to be registered against all the respondents. On 18.2.2017, when the offence was registered, respondent No.1-accused was Cabinet Minister in the erstwhile Government. The applicant submits that after the crime was registered against the respondents, all the three accused were allegedly absconding. On 14.3.2017, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 came to be arrested, whereas respondent No.1 came to be arrested on 15.3.2017. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the respondents had filed an application before the Supreme Court for the relief that they should not be arrested in connection with the crime registered against them, and the prayer was refused. In this backdrop respondents-accused filed application for bail on 24.4.2017. Mr. V.K. Shahi, Additional Advocate General submits that the order of bail is based on irrelevant factors

WWW.LIVELAW.IN and/or ignoring the relevant factors and the orders of the Supreme Court. In support, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs. Rajballav Prasad Yadav, JT 2016 (11) SC 261. The application was affirmed by one Mr. Vyas Verma, the brother of Vikas Verma, respondent accused No.2. The application was placed before the Learned Judge on the very same day (24.4.2017) on which he passed the following order: "Register: Copy be served to Govt. Counsel. Put up on 25.4.17 for disposal. C.D. and comments be called for" Sd/24.4.2017" On the next day i.e. (25.4.2017) the I.O. made an application seeking further time to produce the case diary (CD) and other records and also to submit his comments stating that the CD/record being very bulky he would require some more time to place his comments on record and requested for atleast three days time. Similarly, on this application, the learned Judge made the following endorsement: "A.D.G.C. has asserted that he is ready to advance arguments on bail on ground of Case Diary which is available. Hence no further comments are needed. Accordingly application bears no cogent ground. Rejected" It is pertinent to note that on the very same day Additional District Government Counsel (ADGC) also filed an application for seeking atleast three days time for seeking instructions and to place their comments and case diary before the Court. It is pertinent to note that on this application, the learned Judge did not make any endorsement and he proceeded to hear the case on merits and enlarged the accused on bail. I would not like to

WWW.LIVELAW.IN make any comments at this stage on merits of the order passed by learned Judge. I may however observe that the manner in which the learned Judge has shown the haste in releasing the accused on bail ignoring the nature of offence allegedly committed by the respondent accused and the fact that the crime came to be registered against these accused by virtue of the order of the Supreme Court dated 17.2.2017, I have my reservations about the bonafides/intention of the Learned Judge who is about to retire on 30.4.2017. This Court is also informed that insofar as accused No. 1 is concerned, he has not been released on bail in view of the fact that he is wanted in some other cases. So far as accused Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, they have already been released on bail. It is also pertinent to note that the respondent-accused No.1 in his bail application has stated that no criminal cases are registered or pending against him which fact also prima facie does not appear to be true and correct. The applicants have placed on record the list of cases registered against respondent No.1-accused, at Annexure 12. In this view of the matter, I am satisfied that the interim prayer in this application deserves to be granted as prayed. Accordingly, the order of bail shall remain in abeyance until further orders. In so far as accused no. 2 and 3 are concerned, it is open to the Investigating Agency to take accused Nos. 2 and 3 in custody, pending the hearing and final disposal of this application. S.O. to 12.5.2017. Order Date :- 28.4.2017 VMA (Dilip B Bhosale, CJ)

BAIL(L)_3584_2017.pdf

LIVELAW.IN. Page 3 of 3. BAIL(L)_3584_2017.pdf. BAIL(L)_3584_2017.pdf. Open. Extract. Open with. Sign In. Main menu. Displaying BAIL(L)_3584_2017.pdf.

37KB Sizes 1 Downloads 176 Views

Recommend Documents

No documents