High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:108722 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 583 of 2024 Applicant :- Abhishek Gangwar Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation Anti Corruption Branch Ghaziabad Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Gangwar,Nikhil Kumar,Prashant Kanha Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Mr. N.I. Jafri, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Gangwar, the learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel representing C.B.I. 2. Perused the record. 3. This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant-Abhishek Gangwar seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. RC1202023A0009, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B IPC, Police Station-CBI/ACB, Ghaziabad. 4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 15.11.2023, a prompt FIR dated 15.11.2023 was lodged by first informant Anish Gupta, DIG, CBI and was registered as Crime No. RC1202023A0009, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B IPC, Police Station-CBI/ACB, Ghaziabad. In the aforesaid FIR, two persons namely (1) Yogesh Yadav, Sanitary Inspector, Cantonment Board, Meerut (U.P.) and (2) Abhishek,Sanitary Inspector, Cantonment Board, Meerut (U.P.) have been nominated as named accused. 5. From the perusal of aforesaid FIR, it is apparent that on the complaint made by the complainant Varun Agarwal, a police trap was laid and co-accused Yogesh Yadav was caught red handed with cash worth Rs. 15,000/- in the denomination of Rs. 5,00/- currency notes. The result of the chemical test conducted in respect of the bribe taken by co-accused is also against co-accused. 6. Present application for anticipatory bail came up for admission on 14.03.2024 and this Court passed the following order:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the C.B.I. 2. The instant applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in the case arising out of Crime No. RC1202023A0009, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B I.P.C., Police Station CBI/ACB, Ghaziabad, District Ghaziabad 3. During the course of argument, much emphasis has been given by learned counsel for the applicant that the last line of transcript of telephonic conversation between the applicant and co-accused Yogesh has been incorrectly mentioned by the C.B.I. in Paragraph No. 14 of the counter affidavit and to demonstrate the said submission, he placed reliance upon the documents (statement of Varun Agarwal and other witnesses of C.B.I.) filed along with rejoinder affidavit. 4. On putting query in this regard learned counsel for C.B.I. submits that since those documents have been brought on record by means of rejoinder affidavit, therefore, he may be allowed some time to seek instruction in the matter. 5. Learned counsel for C.B.I. prays for and is allowed three weeks' time to seek instruction with regard to documents filed along with rejoinder affidavit. 6. List this case on 05.04.2024. 7. Till the next date of listing no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case." 7. Learned Senior Counsel for applicant contends that upon completion of statutory investigation of aforementioned case crime number, the C.B.I. has submitted the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on 30.12.2023. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However, up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. Ultimately, co-accused Yogesh Yadav has been enlarged on bail by Court below vide order dated 12.03.2024. Photocopy of the said order has been placed before Court, which is not disputed by the learned counsel representing C.B.I. On the above premise, Mr. N.I. Jafri, the learned Senior Counsel for applicant contends that admittedly, the applicant is co-accused. However, the acceptance of bribe has been made by another co-accused Yogesh Yadav, who has been caught red handed. As such, the case of present applicant is clearly distinguishable from aforementioned co-accused. It is then contended that once co-accused Yogesh Yadav, who was caught red handed with the bribe money, has already been enlarged on bail, no good or justifiable ground exists to permit the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. He, therefore, contends that liberty of applicant is, therefore, liable to be protected by this Court by extending him the benefit of anticipatory bail. 8. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents having no criminal history to his credit except the present one. For the facts and circumstances noted above, the custodial arrest of applicant is not absolutely necessary during the pendency of trial. On the above premise, it is thus urged that applicant is liable to be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. In case, applicant is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. 9. Per contra, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel representing C.B.I. has opposed the present application for anticipatory bail. He submits that since charge sheet has been submitted against applicant, remedy lies to the applicant to approach Court below and apply for regular bail. As such, this application for anticipatory bail is liable to be rejected. However, he could not dislodge the factual/legal submissions urged by the learned Senior Counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage. 10. Having heard, the learned Senior Counsel for applicant, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel representing C.B.I. and upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made, complicity of accused and coupled with the fact that named and charge sheeted co-accused Yogesh Yadav has already been enlarged on regular bail by Court below, the case of present applicant is on better footing than co-accused Yogesh Yadav inasmuch as, co-accused Yogesh Yadav was caught red handed with bribe of Rs. 15,000/-, the chemical examination conducted in respect of the bribe received by co-accused is against co-accused Yogesh Yadav, furthermore, the applicant has been primarily charge sheeted under Section 120-B IPC, the offence of conspiracy is subject to trial evidence, the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. (charge sheet) has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized, yet in spite of above, the learned counsel representing C.B.I. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the clean antecedents of applicant, therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned counsel representing C.B.I. in opposition to this application for anticipatory bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for anticipatory bail. 11. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is allowed. 12. In the event of arrest of the present applicant involved in the aforesaid case crime number, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :- (i) the applicant will make himself available for interrogation by the police as and when required; (ii) the applicant will not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) the applicant would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 4.7.2024 Vinay