High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5710 of 2024 Applicant :- Vijendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. 2. Perused the record. 3. This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant-Vijendra Singh seeking his enlargement on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 82 of 2021 under Section 13 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Police Station- Cantt., District- Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial i.e. Special Trial No. 1299 of 2021 (State Vs. Vijendra Singh) under Section 13 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station- Cantt., District- Gorakhpur, 4. Record shows that an F.I.R. dated 12.02.2021 was lodged by
Facts
first informant-Rakesh Pandey, Litigation Clerk and was registered as Case Crime No. 0082 of 2021 under Section 13 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Police Station- Cantt., District- Gorakhpur. In the aforesaid F.I.R. applicant Vijendra Singh, who at that time was working as ADGC/Special Public Prosecutor, has nominated as solitary named accused. 5. Gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that applicant is alleged to have demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/- to 50,000/- for securing the acquittal of the accused in Special Trial No. 79 of 2014 under Section 376, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Sections 5/6 POCSO Act and Section 3 (2) 5 SC/ST Act, Police Station, Belghat, District, Gorakhpur. 6. After aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of aforementioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. Upon completion of investigation, he ultimately submitted the police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C i.e. charge sheet dated 09.08.2021 against applicant whereby applicant has been charge-sheeted under Section 13 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act. After submission of police report, cognizance was taken upon same by the concerned Special Judge in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. Resultantly, Special Case No. 1299 of 2021 (State Vs. Vijendra Singh) under Section 13 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Cantt. District-Gorakhpur came to be registered in the Court of Special Judge (Anti Corruption Act) Court No.1/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur. . 7. Attention of the Court was then invited to the order sheet of aforementioned Special Sessions Trial, copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure 10 to the affidavit filed in support of this application for anticipatory bail and on basis thereof, it is
Legal Reasoning
the basis of which it can even be prima facie said that offence under Section 13 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act is made out against applicant. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that liberty of applicant be protected by extending the benefit of anticipatory bail in his favour. In case the applicant is granted the benefit of anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the same and shall co-operate with the trial. 11. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the present application for anticipatory bail. He submits that applicant is a named and charge-sheeted accused therefore no indulgence be granted by this Court in his favour. Referring to the judgement of Apex Court in P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198, he submits that exercise of jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be done in rare cases. No exceptional circumstance has emerged so as to grant anticipatory bail to applicant. As such, this application for anticipatory bail is liable to be rejected. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon consideration of material on record, evidence, gravity and nature of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant, matter requires consideration. 13. Notice on behalf of opposite party-1 has been accepted by the learned A.G.A. He prays for and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Applicant will have one week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. 14. List for orders after expiry of aforesaid period. 15. In view of above, in the event of arrest, applicant- Vijendra Singh shall be released on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 82 of 2021 under Section 13 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Police Station- Cantt., District-Gorakhpur on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Court with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court; (ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if she has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned. (iii). In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt. Advocate is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 15.7.2024/YK
Arguments
urged by the learned counsel for applicant that neither non-bailable warrant has been issued against applicant nor coercive process has been adopted by court below to secure the custody of applicant. 8. It is then contended by the learned counsel for applicant that Special Sessions Trial No. 79 of 2014 was ultimately decided on 08.02.2021 resulting in the acquittal of the accused whereas the F.I.R. giving rise to present criminal proceedings has been lodged on 12.02.2021. On the above premise, he therefore submits that cause of action for initiating present criminal proceedings stood vanished on the date of lodging of the F.I.R.. 9. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. The police report (charge-sheet) in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallised. However, upto this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. The custodial arrest of applicant is, therefore, not absolutely necessary for conducting trial. Referring to internal page 2 of the Bail Rejection Order passed by court below, the learned counsel for applicant submits that except for hearsay evidence no such clinching and reliable evidence has emerged against applicant, on