Allahabad High Court
Sanjeev Kumar Alias Sanjay vs State Of U.P. on 19 August, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ? Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141136 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 6621 of 2025 Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Alias Sanjay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Kumar Shukla,Vikash Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Vikash Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
4. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.257 of 2022 registered under Sections 147, 307, 120B IPC at Police Station- Civil Line, District Moradabad with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
5. This is the third anticipatory bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.12929 of 2023. The second anticipatory bail application was also rejected by this Court vide order dated 30.4.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.14265 of 2023 and the following order was passed:-
“1. List has been revised.
2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits filed today are taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Sarvey Nazir Advocate holding brief of Sri Zafar Abbas, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
4. The present application has been filed for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.257 of 2022, under Sections 147, 307, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Civil Lines, District- Moradabad, during the pendency of trial.
5. This is the second anticipatory bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected vide order dated 24.11.2023 of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.12929 of 2023. The relevant paragraph-8 of the said order is being reproduced as follows:
“8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the name of the applicant has come up in the body of the FIR coupled with the fact that the criminal history assigned to the applicant has not been explained as no orders have been annexed regarding the nine cases assigned to the applicant, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. The arguments tendered at Bar pertain to regular bail application and cannot be agitated at the stage of 438 Cr.P.C.”
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail on the new ground that the said fact of criminal history of nine cases against the applicant has been wrongly mentioned in the order dated 24.11.2023. In fact, the applicant has criminal history of only four cases out of which one case has been instituted subsequent to the present FIR, in which proceedings have been stayed. The complete criminal antecedents of the applicant have been explained in paragraph-33 of the affidavit filed with the anticipatory bail application.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the address of the applicant has been wrongly mentioned in Case Crime No.209 of 2020, under Sections 279, 338 I.P.C., P.S. Katghar, District Moradabad, Case Crime No.386 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C., P.S. Katghar, District Moradabad, Case Crime No.180 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 427, 323, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Bilari, District- Moradabad, Case Crime No.309 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 342, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Bhojpur, District Moradabad, Case Crime No.316 of 2016, under Sections 354, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Majhola, District Moradabad, Case Crime No.28 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Moradabad and Case Crime No.950 of 2018, under Sections 471, 468, 467, 420, 419 I.P.C., P.S. Civil Lines, District Moradabad. The address of the applicant is different in all the aforesaid cases.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that as far as Case Crime No.143 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 313, 504, 506, 354A, 307 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Moradabad is concerned, the applicant has been exonerated in the said case and the final report (charge-sheet) indicates that no case was found against him, the same has been filed as Annexure-16 to the affidavit. Learned counsel has stated that the ninth case is the present one. It is further stated that as far as Compliant Case No.4435 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 504 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kundarki, District Moradabad is concerned, the applicant is on bail in it. The applicant is also on bail in Complaint Case No.30095 of 2021, under Sections 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Majhola, District Moradabad. As far as Complaint Case No.10116 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Bilari, District Moradabad is concerned, the proceedings have been stayed by this Court vide order dated 3.1.2023 passed in Application U/s 482 No.27763 of 2022.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that name and parentage in all the said case crimes is same. The applicant keeps on moving to different places, as such the address is changed in those FIRs. Learned counsel for the informant has further stated that proceedings U/s 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. are complete in Complaint Case No.4435 of 2022 and the applicant has been declared a proclaimed offender in the said case. It is further argued that as far as the instant Case Crime No.257 of 2022 is concerned, the allegations are serious in nature and even the proceedings U/s 82 Cr.P.C. have been issued against him on 16.2.2024. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
10. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the said proceedings have been undertaken after filing of instant anticipatory bail application on 16.12.2023.
11. After hearing learned counsels for the parties and taking into consideration the factum of criminal antecedents of eleven cases pending against the applicant coupled with the fact that applicant has annexed the orders of three cases only, even otherwise the case of the applicant for anticipatory bail is not made out, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
12. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
13. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of anticipatory bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.”
6. Subsequent to the second bail order, the final report (charge-sheet) was submitted against the applicant on 01.10.2024, thereby, he has filed the instant third anticipatory bail application.
PROSECUTION STORY:
7. After hatching conspiracy with the applicant, the co-accused persons, namely, Rajpal, Navneet, Bhola, Sweta and Shivani, came outside the house of the informant and assaulted him, causing grievous injuries to him whereby the co-accused Bhola is stated to have tried to strangulate him and co-accused Rajpal is stated to have assaulted him with knife on 08.03.2022 at about 5:00 p.m.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
8. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
9. There are five injuries sustained by the injured person. Three injuries are contusions, one is abrasion and there is only one incised wound sustained by him, as such, the injuries have been manufactured by him.
10. The FIR is delayed and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The applicant is not the actual perpetrator of crime, rather he has been assigned the role of hatching a criminal conspiracy.
11. The name of the applicant does find mentioned in the body of FIR, but he has not been arrayed as an accused in column-7 of the FIR where the names of the accused persons are mentioned, which indicates foul play.
12. It is a clear-cut case of false implication as the same informant and other family members had instituted several cases against the applicant and his family members. They want the applicant to be incarcerated somehow or the other.
13. The earlier two anticipatory bail applications filed by the applicant were before filing of the final report (charge-sheet) and he was not arrested, as such, he has filed the instant anticipatory bail application after filing of the final report (charge-sheet) on 01.10.2024.
14. Prior to the said filing of final report (charge-sheet), the applicant had challenged the FIR before this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.17109 of 2024 and the applicant was granted interim protection vide order dated 23.9.2024. The said interim protection was rendered infructuous as the final report (charge-sheet) was submitted against the applicant.
15. After it, the applicant challenged the said final report (charge-sheet) by filing a petition U/S 528 BNSS No.4332 of 2025. The same was dismissed vide order dated 20.02.2025, and the applicant was directed to apply for bail before the Trial Court. The word ‘bail’ includes ‘anticipatory bail’, as such, the instant anticipatory bail application has been filed in compliance of the said order dated 20.02.2025.
16. The applicant was not arrested during investigation, as such, he is entitled for anticipatory bail after filing of the final report (charge-sheet). The fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated as he has indefeasible right to be enlarged on bail as provided in the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51.
17. The criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also, failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
18. The anticipatory bail application has been opposed on the ground that there is a long criminal history of the applicant. No order has been filed with respect to FIR No.803 of 2022, under sections 384, 504 and 506 I.P.C., PS- Majhola, District Moradabad, thus, the criminal history of the applicant has not been properly explained. Only FIR has been filed by the counsel for the applicant.
19. Learned counsel for the informant has stated that there is criminal history of twelve cases assigned to the applicant and there is no proper explanation of those cases.
20. The applicant has misused the process of law as he has every now and then approached the High Court. This is the fifth attempt of the applicant before this Court.
ARGUMENTS IN REBUTTAL ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
21. As far as the criminal history of Case Crime No.803 of 2022 is concerned, the name of the applicant find mentioned in the body of the FIR, but he has not been arrayed as an accused in column-7 of the FIR where the names of the accused persons are mentioned and he could not furnish the final report (charge-sheet) of the said case, as such, the criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained.
CONCLUSION:
22. The present anticipatory bail application is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The applicant has already availed of remedies before this Court on multiple earlier occasions. It is a matter of record that:
1. Two previous anticipatory bail applications filed by the applicant were dismissed by this Court.
2. Thereafter, the applicant instituted a Criminal Writ Petition challenging the very registration of the FIR, which too did not yield relief.
3. Subsequently, after filing of the Final Report (Charge-sheet), the applicant preferred a petition under Section 523 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which also stood dismissed.
4. The applicant has avoided trial for more than three years.
23. This present anticipatory bail application is thus the third application for anticipatory bail and, in effect, the fifth attempt of the applicant before this Court to secure some relief, despite repeated rejections.
24. Such a pattern of litigation clearly demonstrates a deliberate misuse of the benevolence of law and an attempt to stall and frustrate the course of trial under one pretext or the other. The applicant has successfully avoided commencement of trial proceedings for more than three years. Such conduct has to be deprecated, so that such repeated and vexatious attempts are discouraged and the sanctity of judicial process is preserved.
25. The Supreme Court Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 held that although anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of right, repeated applications are not maintainable unless there is a substantial change in circumstances. The same view was reiterated in State of M.P. vs. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673.
26. In Bharat Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 1995 Cri LJ 1368 (Raj HC) the practice of filing repeated anticipatory bail applications after rejection was condemned as misuse of the process of law by the Rajasthan High Court.
27. In Sandeep Jain vs. State, 2000 Cri LJ 1385 (Del HC) the Delhi High Court observed that filing repeated applications amounts to “bench hunting” and erodes faith in judicial discipline.
28. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Cipla Limited and Another, (2017) 5 SCC 262 has termed the forum shopping as disreputable practice.
29. The applicant has avoided the trial Court for more than three years. In Kartarey and others vs. The State of U.P. (1976) 1 SCC 172, the Supreme Court has opined that to be an ‘absconder’ in the eye of law, it is not necessary that a person should have run away from his home, it is sufficient if he hides himself to evade the process of law, even if the hiding place be his own home.
30. The learned counsel for the applicant has failed in his duty to provide sound legal advice to his client, resulting in a frivolous and misconceived proceeding. Such careless conduct not only reflects poorly on the officer of the Court but has also led to a wholly avoidable drain on the precious judicial time of this already overburdened institution. As already stated in an earlier order this Court again strongly deprecates such misuse of process and expects greater responsibility from members of the Bar. The conduct of Sri Vikash Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant is deprecated.
31. The filing of present, third successive application for anticipatory bail, in the considered view of this Court, amounts to nothing short of an abuse of the process of law. The Supreme Court has time and again observed that courts must guard against multiplicity of proceedings and avoid entertaining repetitive applications which, by their very nature, erode judicial discipline and undermine the sanctity of judicial orders.
32. This Court is mindful of the principle that precious judicial time is a public resource of the highest value, and the same cannot be squandered on hearings arising out of vexatious or repeated motions. Entertaining such successive bail applications only contributes to docket congestion, thereby delaying the cause of genuine litigants who approach the Court with bona fide grievances.
33. Accordingly, this Court cannot permit practices which not only stultify the justice delivery system but also impede the fundamental duty of the Court to ensure that justice is administered efficiently, equitably, and without unnecessary delay.
34. The present, third anticipatory bail application is devoid of any fresh ground and thus amounts to nothing but an abuse of the process established by law. The criminal history of the applicant has also not been properly explained.
35. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 19.8.2024
(Ravi Kant)
(Justice Krishan Pahal)