Allahabad High Court Judgement

Allahabad High Court Judgement

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice at mail@myadvocates.club
JUDGEMENT HEADLINE : Bail Cancelled On Material Concealment Of Fact. Directions Issued For Reporting Of All Criminal Matters, Annexing Free Copy And Vakalatnama.
JUDGEMENT TITLE : Mohd Anees @ Phunnu Lal Vs. State Of U.P. On 12/09/2014 By Allahabad High Court
CASE NO : CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 26878 OF 2014
CORAM : Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

AFR
Court No. 51
Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 26878 Of 2014.
Mohammad Anees @ Phunnu Lal Vs. State Of U.P.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.
1. Heard Sri Manish Tandon, Learned Counsel For The Applicant, Sri L.D. Rajbhar, Learned A.G.A. For The State.
2. Today, Sri Manish Tandon, Learned Counsel For The Applicant Has Made A Mention In The Morning At 10 A.M. That On 22.8.2014, He Argued The Present Bail Application On Behalf Of The Applicant Seeking His Bail In Case Crime No. 24 Of 2014, U/s 307, 324, 504 IPC And Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, P.S. Moosa Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar And The Same Was Allowed By The Court After Hearing Him And Sri L.D. Rajbhar, Learned AGA For The State. Thereafter, He Moved A Correction Application Before This Court, I.e., Crl. Misc. Correction Application No. 289815 Of 2014 As There Was A Mistake In The Name Of The District Of The Present Bail Which Too Was Allowed By The Court On 3.9.2014 After Hearing Him And Sri S.D. Yadav, Learned A.G.A. For The State And After Passing Of The Aforesaid Two Orders, He Came To Know That Prior To Filing Of The Present Bail Application Another Bail Application, I.e., Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 23718 Of 2014 Mohammad Anees @ Phunnu Lal Vs. State Of U.P. Was Also Filed On 28.7.2014 By Sri Shashank Dwivedi And Ms. Rinki Gupta, Advocate On Behalf Of The Same Accused-applicant In The Same Case Crime Number For The Same Offence, I.e., Case Crime No. 24 Of 2014, U/s 307, 324, 504 IPC And Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, P.S. Moosa Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar. On The Said Date Following Order Was Passed By The Court:-
"Heard Sri S. Dwivedi, Learned Counsel For The Applicant And Sri Manish Dev, Learned AGA For The State.
Looking To The Nature Of Allegation And The Period Of Detention, List After Four Weeks."
3. Thereafter The Aforesaid Bail Application Was Listed In Daily Cause List On 4.9.2014 Which Too Was Allowed By This Court After Hearing The Learned Counsel For The Parties On 4.9.2014.
4. Taking Into Account The Seriousness Of The Matter And Circumstances Of The Case As Has Been Stated By Sri Manish Tandon Learned Counsel For The Applicant, The Bench Secretary Of The Court Was Directed To Summon The Record Of Both The Bail Applications From The Concerned Office And Place The Matter Before The Court After Mid-day Recess.
5. The Matter Has Been Placed Before The Court After Mid-day Recess. Sri Manish Tandon And Ms. Rinki Gupta Counsel For The Applicant In Both The Bail Applications Are Present.
6. Sri Shashank Dwivedi, Advocate, Who Had Filed The Earlier Bail Application Along With Ms. Rinki Gupta, Advocate Is Stated To Be Out Of Station, Hence He Could Not Appear Before The Court.
7. From The Record Of Both The Bail Applications It Is Apparent That The Deponent Of Both The Bail Applications Is The Same Person, Namely, Chunna, S/o Chhote Lal, R/o 229, Gaunsaganj, Tehsil Bhognipur, District Ramabai Nagar, Who Happens To Be The Real Brother Of The Applicant.
8. In Para No. 2 Of The Present Bail Application, It Has Been Stated That This Is The First Bail Application On Behalf Of The Applicant Against The Bail Rejection Order Dated 22.4.2014 Passed By The Court Below And The Matter Is Neither Related To C.B.I Nor Any Other Independent Investigation Agency.
9. There Appears To Be Material Concealment Of Fact In The Present Bail Application By The Deponent As Being The Deponent Of The Earlier Bail Application, .i.e., Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 23718 Of 2014 Mohammad Anees @ Phunnu Lal Vs. State Of U.P. Filed On Behalf Of The Same Applicant, He Was Very Much Aware About Filing And Pendency Of The Same At The Time Of Filing Of The Present Bail Application Which Was Subsequently Allowed By This Court On 4.9.2014.
10. Sri Manish Tandon, Learned Counsel For The Applicant States That The Applicant Has Already Been Released On Bail In Pursuance Of Order Dated 22.8.2014 And Corrected On 3.9.2014 By This Court.
11. Sri Manish Tandon, Learned Counsel For The Applicant Has Stated Before The Court That He Was Not Informed By The Deponent Of The Bail Application Regarding Pendency Of The Earlier Bail Application On Behalf Of The Applicant.
12. Ms. Rinki Gupta, Learned Counsel Appearing In The Earlier Bail Application Also Stated That She Has Filed The Bail Application On Behalf Of The Applicant In The Aforesaid Case Crime Number At Earlier Point Of Time After Giving Notice Of The Same To The Learned Government Advocate. She Further Submits That Free Copy Of The Bail Rejection Order Has Been Annexed Along With The Bail Application Filed By Her. She Further Submits That Neither She Nor Sri Shashank Dwivedi Who Had Jointly Filed The Bail Application On Behalf Of The Applicant At Earlier Point Of Time Also Does Not Have Knowledge About The Filing Of Subsequent Bail Application On Behalf Of The Applicant.
13. Looking To The Alarming Situation, This Court Also Summoned Sri Rakesh Pandey (President) And Dr. C.P. Upadhyay (Secretary) Bar Association Of Allahabad High Court To Apprise Them About The Present Situation On Which Sri Rakesh Pandey Appeared Before The Court And Expressed His Distress About The Matter And Stated That It Is The Need Of The Hour That When Such Matters Come To The Knowledge Of The Court It Should Be Dealt With Stringent Action Against The Accused And The Deponent Of The Case, Who For The Sake Of Their Interest Obtain A Favourable Order By Misleading The Court And Sometime Cheat Their Counsel By Not Informing Them The Correct Facts.
14. Sri Pandey Further Suggested That There Should Be Reporting Of All The Bail Applications Which Are Filed In The High Court Like Writ Petitions Etc. In Order To Prevent The Dubious Act Of The Accused And Their Pairokars, Family Members, Relatives Etc, Who Come To This Court For Filing Affidavit In The Matter. He Stated That The Earlier Office Bearers Of The Bar Association And He Himself Have Approached To The Earlier Chief Justices Of This Court To Make An Arrangement In The High Court For Clicking The Photograph Of The Deponent Of The Case So That He May Be Asked To Come To This Court And Provide Necessary Information About Him And The Case As Well So That There May Not Be Any Miscommunication Between Him And His Counsel In The High Court. He Requested The Court To Pass Necessary Orders In This Respect Also.
15. Connect The Present Bail Application With Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23718 Of 2014 Mohd. Anees @ Phunnu Lal Vs. State Of U.P.
16. Issue Notice To The Deponent Of The Case, Namely, Chunna, S/o Chhote Lal, R/o 229, Gaunsaganj, Tehsil Bhognipur, District Rama Bai Nagar To Show Cause As To Why Proceedings For Contempt And Perjury May Not Be Initiated Against Him For Filing The Present Bail Application Though Another Bail Application, I.e., Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.23718 Of 2014 Was Also Pending On Behalf Of The Applicant In Same Crime Number For The Same Offences.
17. From The Record It Is Apparent That Beneficiary Of The Aforesaid Two Bail Applications Is The Applicant. As The Order Granting Bail To Him Has Been Obtained By Playing Fraud On The Court By Concealing The Material Facts In The Present Bail Application, Hence The Bail Granted To The Applicant In The Present Bail Application On 22.8.2014 Which Was Corrected On 3.9.2014 Is Hereby Cancelled. His Bond And Sureties Are Discharged And Order Passed On 4.9.2014 In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23718 Of 2014 Mohd. Anees @ Kunnu Lal In Case Crime No. 24 Of 2014, U/s 307, 324, 504 IPC And Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, P.S. Moosa Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar Granting Bail To Him Is Also Hereby Recalled And Bail Application Is Restored To It's Original Number.
18. The C.J.M. Kanpur Dehat Is Directed To Take The Applicant Into Custody Forthwith And Send Him To Jail.
19. The Notice To The Aforesaid Deponent Of The Case Shall Be Served Through C.J.M, Kanpur Dehat.
20. Registrar General Of This Court Is Directed To Send The Certified Copy Of This Order To The District Judge, Kanpur Dehat And C.J.M. Kanpur Dehat By FAX Or Any Other Fastest Mode For It's Compliance Who Shall Also Submit The Compliance Report To This Court By The Next Date Fixed In The Matter.
21. The Court Wants To Observe That It Is Coming Across Many Such Instances Where During The Pendency Of A Bail Application Of An Accused Subsequent Bail Applications Are Being Filed On Behalf Of The Same Accused In Same Crime Number And For Same Offences By The Pairokars, Family Members And Relatives Of The Accused And The Deponent Of Which Are Sometimes Same Or Different In Both The Bail Applications Which Causes Great Hurdle In The Smooth Functioning Of The Court In Dispensation Of Justice. The Court Taking Into Account Such Disturbing Situation Even Earlier Tried To Curb This Unethical Practice By Imposing Exemplary Cost On The Deponent Of The Bail Application On Several Occasions As The Learned Counsel For The Accused Persons Tendered Oral Unconditional Apologies Before This Court On Behalf Of The Accused And The Deponent Of The Case But It Appears That The Same Is Of No Use. Hence, It Has To Be Taken Judicial Notice Of And Dealt In A Very Stringent Manner As There Is Every Likelihood Of Conflicting Orders Being Passed By The Courts On The Bail Application Of Same Accused In The Same Crime Number For Same Offence.
22. While Dealing With The Bail Matters Another Difficulty To Which The Court Come Across Is That Some Times, Names Of The Accused, Crime Numbers, Police Station, Names Of The District Offences, Period Of Detention In Jail Of An Accused, Affidavits Are Defective, Legible Copies Of The Post-mortem Report, Medical Report, Statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C Etc. Are Not Correctly Mentioned And Some Times The Same Appears To Have Been Deliberately Wrongly Written So That The Complainant And Aggrieved Person Of The Case May Not Be Able To Watch The Case To Contest The Same And The Accused May Obtain Ex-parte Order From The Court By Not Placing The Correct Facts And Mislead It.
23. It Is Also Pertinent To Mention Here That Sometime In A Case Relating To A Murder Case, Rape Case, Case Of Dacoity, Scam Matters, Fraud In Bank, Public Sector, Various Public Welfare Schemes Introduced By The Central Government And State Government Where There Is More Than One Accused, Some Accused Are In Jail And The Other Co-accused Of The Same Case Challenge The Proceeding Of The Trial Court Before This Court And Get The Proceedings Of The Trial Stayed For Several Years Without Disclosing Real And True Facts Causing Great Hardship For The Complainant And Aggrieved Person To Get The Interim Order Vacated And Petition Disposed Of Which Takes Long Time Due To Heavy Pressure Of Work And Even The Accused Of The Same Crime Numbers And Offences Remain In Jail For Several Years And Then Come Out With The Plea That The Proceeding Of The Trial Has Been Stayed By This Court At The Instance Of Co-accused Person Who Is Outside Jail Without Obtaining Bail From The Competent Court And The Accused Is Languishing In Jail For No Fault On His Part. Though Some Mechanism Have Been Developed By The Court Through Computerization Process To Detect The Petitions Which Have Been Filed By The Accused And Co-accused In Various Forum Before This Court In A Case But The Accused And Its Pairokars Mischievously Indulge In Such Mal-practice That They For Their Vested Interest Get The Wrong Particulars Written On Bail Application, 482/483 Cr.P.C. Application Etc. So That It May Go Even Unnoticed By The Computerization Section Of This Court, By The Court And Also By The Complainant/aggrieved Person And Get It Subsequently Corrected.
24. Now A Days, The Courts Are Also Realizing Much Difficulty Specially In Dealing With Bail Applications, 482/483 Cr.P.C. Applications, Which Are Filed In Huge Numbers Per Day And Which Become Practically Impossible For An Hon'ble Judge To Finish The Same By The End Of Day And Some Times The Matters Listed In Daily Cause List Do Not Reach The Board And The Day Comes To End Leaving Behind Large Number Of Cases Being Filed In Back Log Cases Which Becomes Curse To The Litigant As Well As His Counsel Even Also To The Court Which In Spite Of Its Best Effort Is Unable To Finish Off The Cases Listed On Board Per Day. One Of The Reason Behind The Above Difficulty Which The Court Realizes Is The Multiplicity Of The Proceedings Before This Court For Same Cause Of Action And Sometimes For Similar Relief By An Accused In A Criminal Case. An Accused Files Several Bail Applications, 482/483 Cr.P.C. Applications In Order To Obtain An Order In His Favour Which Some Times Goes Unnoticed By The Court As There Is No Provision For Reporting Of The Bail Application And 482/483 Cr.P.C. Application And Transfer Application U/s 407 Cr.P.C Resulting In Serious Legal Complications By Contradictory Orders Of The Court.
25. The Court Has Further Notice That The Power Which Is Being Filed By The Learned Counsel Specially In 482/483 Cr.P.C. Applications, Criminal Revision And Transfer Application U/s 407 Cr.P.C On Behalf Of The Either Parties Whether It Is Of Accused Or The Complainant/aggrieved Person By Way Of Memo Of Appearance Is Also Causing Great Inconvenience, Obstacle In Smooth Functioning Of The Court And Sometimes Even Causes Embarrassment To The Learned Counsel For The Respective Parties. As When There Are More Than One Accused/applicant In 482/483 Cr.P.C., Criminal Revision And Transfer Application, U/s 407 Cr.P.C. Then Sometime Only The Deponent Of The Case Or One Of The Accused Applicant Or Revisionist Instructs A Learned Counsel To Appear In The Matter Of Both The Accused Applicants, Revisionists Or All Of Them. In Such A Situation If An Order Is Passed In Favour Of Both Or All The Accused Applicants Or Revisionists By The Court Then None Of Them Have Any Objection But Where An Adverse Order Is Passed In The Matter Against Both Or All Of Them Then The Other Accused Applicants Or Revisionists On Whose Behalf Such Matters Are Also Filed Raises An Objection Before The Court That Neither He Has Filed The Said Matter Nor Instructed The Counsel To File It On His Behalf Which Causes Embarrassment To The Learned Counsel And Further Waste Precious Time Of The Court To Decide Such Issue Which Is Between The Counsel And His Clients/litigants. Similarly Such Instances Are Also Noticed By The Court In The Cases Of The Informant/complainant/aggrieved Person Who Also Instruct Their Counsel To Contest/oppose The Matter Before The Court Through Memo Of Appearance.
26. In Order To Avoid Such Awkward Situation Before The Court And To Prevent Learned Counsel For The Respective Parties It Is Desirable That Except Bail Application Or When The Accused Is In Jail, In All Cases Vakalatnama Of Accused Applicants/ Petitioners/revisionists/informant/complainant/aggrieved Person As The Case May Be Should Be Filed Which Should Be Duly Attested By A Witness Giving His Full Particulars I.e. Full Name, Father's/husband's Name As The Case May Be And Complete Address Which Should Be Supported By His Self Attested Authentic I.D.
27. Now The Time Has Come To Take Certain Steps By The Court To Stop The Malpractice And Nefarious Activity By The Litigant For Obtaining An Order From This Court By Playing Fraud On It And Adopting Deceitful Means So That No Contradictory Order Is Passed By Any Court Of Co-ordinate Bench Of This Court Which May Be A Mockery To The Whole Judicial System At Hands Of An Accused Who Want To Misuse The Process Of Law At His Own Whims And For Vested Interest.
28. The Court Directs The Registrar General Of This Court To Immediately Take Following Steps In This Respect:-
(1) Reporting Of All The Bail Applications, 482/483 Cr.P.C. Application And Transfer Application U/s 407 Cr.P.C Like Writ Petition And Criminal Revision Etc. By The Stamp Reporter Which Will Help In Getting The Matter Being Reported By Him, If It Is A Subsequent Application On Behalf Of The Same Person For The Same Cause Of Action Or For Similar Relief.
(2)Except Bail Applications Or Where The Accused Is In Jail, In All Cases Vakalatnama Of Accused/applicant(s)/ Petitioner(s) Revisionist(s) Should Be Filed Which Should Be Duly Attested By A Witness Giving His Full Particulars I.e. Full Name, Father's/husband's Name As The Case May Be And Complete Address Which Should Be Supported By His Self Attested Authentic ID.
(3)In All Bail Applications Before The High Court Before The High Court Only Free Certified Copy Of The Order Rejecting Bail To The Accused Applicant Should Be Filed. Any Bail Application Not Having The Free Certified Copy Of The Bail Rejection Should Not Be Taken For Notice By The Office Of The Government Advocate And Should Also Be Not Accepted By The Registry For Filing. Only Those Bail Applications Should Be Taken For Notice By The Office Of The Government Advocate And The Registry For Filing In Which Sufficient Reason In Detail Has Been Given For Not Filing The Free Certified Copy Of The Bail Rejection Order. The Registry, In Such Case(s) Should Mark Specifically That The Said Bail Application Does Not Contain The Free Certified Copy Of The Bail Rejection Order.
(4) If There Are More Than One Accused Applicants In A Bail Application, The Free Certified Copy Of The Bail Rejection Orders Of All Of Them Should Be Annexed.
(5) In The Bail Application Before The High Court Which Contains The Certified Copy Of The Bail Rejection Order And Not The Free Certified Copy, Sufficient Reason In Detail Should Be Given For Not Filing The Free Certified Copy Of The Bail Rejection Order.
(6) The Session Judge/ Special Judge Should Ensure That No Certified Copy Of The Bail Rejection Order Is Issued In A Routine Manner Unless Sufficient Reasons Are Disclosed In The Application For Issuance Of The Said Copy Supported By An Affidavit Disclosing Specifically Therein The Reason For The Issuance Of The Same And The Fate Of The Free Certified Copy Issued To The Accused Earlier. The Folio Which Is Enclosed Alongwith The Application For Issuance Of The Certified Copy Of The Bail Rejection Order Should Specifically State The Reason Why The Said Copy Is Needed And If The Same Is Intended To Be Used In Any Court Then The Court And Proceedings In Which It Is To Be Used.
(7) All The Session Judge/Special Judge Should Ensure That If There Are More Than One Accused In A Bail Application Free Copy Of The Bail Rejection Order Should Be Issued To Each To Them.
29. So Far As Making An Arrangement For Clicking Of Photographs Of The Deponent By The High Court As Has Been Suggested By Sri Pandey, President Of Bar Association, The Court Does Not Want Express Its Opinion On The Same As It Is Prerogative Of Hon'ble The Chief Justice Who Is Very Much Aware About This Situation And It Is His Discretion To Take Necessary Decision In This Regard.
30. List The Matter On 25.9.2014 Before Me Along With Connected Matter On Which Date Learned Counsel For The Applicant Appearing In Both The Bail Applications Shall Remain Present Before This Court.
31. Let A Copy Of This Order Be Placed Before Hon'ble The Chief Justice For Perusal.
32. The Registrar General Of This Court Is Directed To Circulate A Copy Of This Order To All The Sessions Judge/Special Judge In The Districts Of The State For Strict Compliance Of Sub Paras 6 And 7 Of Paragraph 28 Of This Order In Pursuance Of Circular I.e. E.L.No.42/VII B-47 Dated 8th March, 1977 Issued By This Court. He Shall Also Send A Copy Of This Order To The Advocate General And Government Advocate Of The State

Go to Navigation