Result of U.P. Higher Judicial Service (Main Written) Examination, 2014 Direct Recruitment to U.P. Higher Judicial Service held on 14th, 15th and 16th November, 2014 has been declared. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur notified Advertisement for recruitment additional district judges through M.P. Higher Judicial Service (Entry Level) Direct Recruitment for BAR, Exam 2015 Haryana Judicial Services Examination 2014-Pre is conducted on 10th of Jan 2015. The result is awaited. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI will hold examination for direct recruitment against 14 vacancies to Delhi Higher Judicial Service on Sunday, the 06th April,2014-Last Date 06.02.2014 13/11/2013: While renewing the term of the appointment of the existing incumbents the State Government is required to consider their past performance and conduct in the light of the recommendations made by the District Judges and the District Magistrates. Therefore, the High Court could not have issued a Mandamus for renewal of the term of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and other similarly situated persons and thereby frustrated the provisions of LR Manual and Section 24 Cr.P.C .- SUPREME COURT.
HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT
Go Back to High Court Judgements
  Date 5/3/2009 12:00:00 AM
  Court Allahabad High Court
  Parties Umacharan Vs State of Uttar Pradesh
  Appeal Bails - 25957/2008
  Act Indian Penal Code/UP gangster Act, Criminal Law Amendment Act - 394/411 IPC, 2/3 UP Gangster Act, 7 criminal Law amendment act
  Judgement
  Jail Detention during trial not perse illegal and not be violative of article 21 of Constitution...: ALL. H.C. Pramod Kumar Saxena vs. Union of India and others 2008 (6 ACC 115, in which the Hon. Apex Court has held that mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be per-se illegal-Followed Judgement Hon. Vijay Kumar Verma,J.,ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT : Bail in Crime No. 553 of 2007 under section 394/411 IPC and section 2/3 U.P. Gangster & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act as well as section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act of P.S. Konch, District Jalaun has been sought on behalf of applicant Uma Chandra Awasthi. 2. An FIR was lodged on 23.07.2007 at 3.35 p.m. at P.S. Konch, District Jalaun by Chandra Mohan S/o Vishambhar Prasad Gupta, resident of Keshopur, P.S. Shahjanwa, District Gorakhpur. He was posted as Accountant in M/s A.K. Trading Company Konch. On the basis of that FIR, a case under sections 394 IPC, 2/3 U.P. Gangster Act and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act against two unknown persons was registered. The allegations made in the FIR, in brief, are that the complainant Chandra Mohan along with Sanjay Datiyawale had withdrawn Rs. 11 lac from the State Bank of India, Branch Konch, on 23.07.2007 for the Firm M/s A.K. Trading Co. Konch. When after withdrawing the money they were going towards the Firm and reached in front of Nathu Ram Inter College Kasba Konch at about 3.00 p.m., two unknown persons having country made pistols in their hands came on foot and stopping the motorcycle of the complainant and keeping tamancha on their kanpati, snatched the bag containing Rs. 11 lac and fled away towards Devi Mata Mandir. The complainant and his companion raised noise, on which police came immediately and chased the miscreants, who were fleeing away making fires. Further case of the prosecution is that after chasing the miscreants, both were apprehended by the police at about 4.30 p.m. On inquiry being made by the police, one miscreant told his name as Uma Charan Awasthi S/o Chheda Lal Awasthi (applicant herein). On his personal search one country made tamancha 315 bore with an empty cartridge in its barrel and 3 live cartridges were recovered and one bag was also recovered from his left hand, in which Rs. 10 lac were kept. The second miscreant told his name Nazir Khan S/o Aub Khan, r/o Murli Manohar Kasba, P.S. and District Jalaun. On his personal search one country made tamancha 315 bore with empty cartridge in barrel and two live cartridges as well as one chhuri were recovered and from his shirt Rs. one lac were also recovered which were kept in a plastic bag. It is alleged that prior to the arrest of the accused persons, they fired on the police party with a view to commit the murder of police personnel, but the police personnel saved themselves. Both the accused persons were brought to P.S. Konch, where a case under section 307 IPC and 12/14 U.P. Dacoity Affected Area Act was registered against them at case Crime No. 554 of 2007. 3.I have heard Sri Sanjeev Pandey Advocate appearing for the applicant and Sri Rajiv Tiwari learned AGA for the State and perused the entire record carefully. 4.Firstly, It was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that false story of making recovery of Rs. 10 lac from the applicant has been concocted by the police and since the applicant has been granted bail vide order dated 23.01.2008, passed in Bail Application No. 2814 of 2008, in the incident of alleged police encounter in which the said recovery has been shown to have been made, hence the applicant is entitled for bail in present case also, as story of alleged police encounter has been found false and on that basis bail has been granted to the applicant in that case. 5.It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the complainant Chandra Mohan Gupta wanted to misappropriate Rs. 11 lac and for that purpose he invented a false story of committing robbery of the money by unknown miscreants. In this context, it was further submitted by the learned counsel that as a matter of fact, Rs. 40 lac were withdrawn by the complainant from the State Bank of India, Branch Konch, for the Firm M/s A.K. Trading Co. and out of that amount, the complainant had intended to misappropriate Rs. 11 lac. It was also submitted in this context that in the FIR of crime No. 553 of 2007, Rs. 11 lac have been shown to have been withdrawn, whereas from the material on record, it is established that actually Rs. 40 lac were withdrawn and hence on this ground, the entire case becomes doubtful. 6.Next submission made by learned counsel for the applicant was that story of recovery of the alleged money from the applicant is extremely doubtful, because the incident of robbery is said to have been committed on 23.07.2007 at 3.35 p.m., whereas recovery of Rs. 10 lac and illicit arms from the applicant has been shown to have been made at 4.30 p.m., which is impossible, because after committing robbery at about 3.35 p.m., the accused persons could easily flee away from that area and it was not possible for the police to apprehend the miscreants after about 55 minutes from the time of robbery. It was also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in the FIR there is averment about committing robbery by two persons, whereas in the statement of Sanjay Datiyawale one person more has been introduced. 7.It was also submitted by the learned counsel that the applicant is not named in the FIR and he was not previously known to the complainant and witness Sanjay Datiyawale, but even then the applicant was not put to identification in test identification parade during investigation, although the applicant had moved an application in the court of Special Judge (Gangster Act) Jhansi on 03.01.2008 for this purpose and hence on this ground also, the applicant deserves bail. 8.Regarding the criminal history as shown in the counter affidavit of the State, it was submitted by learned counsel that in some cases the applicant is on bail and in some cases he has been acquitted and hence on the ground of criminal history, bail cannot be refused. 9.Lastly, it was submitted by the learned counsel that the applicant is in jail since 23.07.2007, but his trial has not yet concluded and hence, on the basis of long detention in jail, the applicant is entitled for bail, as due to delay in trial fundamental right of speedy trial envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is being violated. 10.All the aforesaid contentions have been vehemently refuted by the learned AGA and it was submitted by him that in this heinous crime of committing robbery and recovery of Rs. 10 lac with illicit arms, the applicant does not deserve bail. It was also submitted by learned AGA that there is long criminal history of the applicant and by admitting him to bail in present case, licence should not be granted to commit further offences. 11.Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, made by learned counsel for the parties and going through the entire material on record carefully, the applicant does not deserve bail in this heinous crime of robbery and recovery of Rs. 10 lac. It is true that the applicant has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.01.2008 passed in Bail Application No. 2814 of 2008 for the offences punishable under section 307 IPC and 12/14 U.P. Dacoity Affected Area Act in Crime No. 554 of 2007 relating to the incident in which recovery of Rs. 10 lac of robbery is said to have been made from the applicant, but in my considered opinion, the applicant cannot claim parity in present case on the basis of that bail order, because in the said bail order, happening of the incident has not been disbelieved. Merely, because another Bench of this Court has granted bail to the applicant for the offence punishable under section 307 IPC for making fire on police party, the applicant cannot be admitted to bail in present case of committing robbery and recovery of Rs. 10 lac just after 55 minutes of the incident of robbery. 12. Although, the applicant is not named in the FIR of robbery, but on this ground also the applicant can not be granted bail on the basis of the application (Annexure 13) moved on 03.01.2008 in the court of Spl. Judge (Gangster Act) Jhansi, as the matter of not putting the applicant to identification in test identification parade and its consequence can be considered during trial only. 13. It is true that from the record it is revealed that Rs. 40 lac were withdrawn from the Bank by the applicant on the day of incident, whereas in the FIR, Rs. 11 lac only have been shown to have been withdrawn, but in my view on this ground also, the applicant cannot be admitted to bail, because there is prima- facie sufficient evidence to establish that Rs. 10 lac were recovered from the applicant just after 55 minutes of the incident of robbery. 14. According to Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit of the State of U.P., the applicant Uma Charan Awasthi has long criminal history and he is accused in a case under section 394/ 302/ 411/ 120-B IPC of Crime No. 310 of 2002 of P.S. Konch, which is still pending. Another case under section 394/411/120-B IPC of Crime No. 43 of 2006 is also pending. A case under section 2/3 U.P. Gangster Act arising out of Crime No. 127 of 2005 is also pending. Other cases under section 307 IPC and 25 Arms Act are also pending against the applicant. Although, as is evident from the rejoinder affidavit dated 28.02.2009, the applicant has been acquitted in some cases and he is on bail in other cases mentioned in Annexure (CA-1), but by admitting the applicant to bail in present case, licence cannot be granted to him to commit further offences. 15. In my considered opinion, on the basis of long detention in jail also, the applicant can not be admitted to bail in present case of heinous crime of committing robbery and recovery of Rs. 10 lac. In this context reference may be made to the case of Pramod Kumar Saxena vs. Union of India and others 2008 ACC 115, in which the Hon. Apex Court has held that mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be per-se illegal. If the applicant has committed offence, he has to remain behind bars. Such detention in jail even as an under trial prisoner would not be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. 16. For the reasons mentioned herein-above, the bail application of the applicant Uma Charan Awasthi is hereby rejected. 17. The trial court is directed to make sincere efforts to conclude the trial of the applicant within a period of six months from the date on which copy of this order is received by it. The Office is directed to send a copy of this order within a week to the trial court concerned for necessary action.