High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:119666 Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6095 of 2024 Applicant :- Prem Chandra Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manjari Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Arun Kumar Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
14. It seems that business of applicant has failed and as a result of same, repayment has not been made. Prima facie, this Court satisfy that dispute arises out of a civil dispute.
Arguments
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA and perused the material available on record. 2. The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Prem Chandra Sharma in Case Crime No. 0525 of 2023, under Sections 406, 420, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Najibabad, District - Bijnor, U.P. 3. Learned AGA submits that on previous occasion by mistake incorrect statement has been made that charge sheet has been submitted although the charge sheet has been forwarded but till date, has not been submitted. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per allegation in the First Information Report, it is alleged that applicant, who was involved in supply of medical machinery i.e. C.T. Scan system had entered into Memorandum of Understanding cum Agreement with the informant for supply of machinery. The amount of Rs.66,00,000/- was also transferred in the account of applicant for supply of the same, however, due to stringent business condition, machinery could not be supplied as the machinery was not available. It is submitted that since the machinery was not available, applicant was trying to find out the machinery for the informant to be supplied. It is submitted that present case is purely a civil dispute arising out of breach of contract. It is further argued that applicant's case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No prima facie case is made out against the applicant. If the applicant is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and cooperate with the investigation. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest by the police any time. Applicant has disclosed the criminal history in paragraph 29 of the affidavit. 5. Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the anticipatory bail application and submits that agreement for supply of medical machinery was made, for which a sum of Rs.66,00,000/- has been given by the informant to the applicant, however, neither the machinery was supplied nor the amount was returned. The cheque for a sum of Rs.66,00,000/- was given by the applicant to the wife of informant, however, the aforesaid cheque was dishonoured. It is also submitted that applicant has intention to cheat the informant and as such, FIR has been lodged. 6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer. 7. It is not shown by learned AGA that the offence in question will have impact on society at large. It is not shown that act causes harm to the society. The accusations arise out of dispute between individuals. It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would disentitle the applicant for relief of anticipatory bail. Learned AGA has not raised concern that any prejudice would be caused to free, fair and full investigation in the event the applicant is granted anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence. 8. Learned AGA for the State has pointed out the criminal antecedents of the applicant. No material or circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of witness in previous criminal cases. 9. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:- "We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history- sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked." 10. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 11. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent. 12. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State. 13. It is to be seen that the present case arises out of a contract for supply of medical machinery. As per allegation, machinery could not be supplied as the same was not available although applicant admits to have received a sum of Rs.66,00,000/- from the informant for supply of machinery. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the present case is purely a dispute arising out of civil contract and as such, criminal proceedings could not be tenable under law. Learned counsel for the informant has stated that there is an intention to cheat and the cheque in question, which was given by the applicant to the wife of informant towards repayment of the amount was dishonoured. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is going through stringent financial condition and as a result of same, cheque was dishonoured. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that applicant would repay the amount to informant in due course along with all consequential benefits. The applicant is being prosecuted for offences which are below seven years. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph 29 of the affidavit and all are arising out of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Decision
15. In view of the above, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail in respect of offence described in para 2 of the present order. In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till submission of charge sheet on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police office as and when required. (ii) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court concerned. (iv) In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned/Investigating Officer about new residential address in writing. (v) The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself/herself available for interrogation whenever required. (vi) The applicant shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police. (vii) The applicant shall maintain law and order. (viii) The applicant shall at the time of execution of the bond, furnish his address and mobile number to Investigating Officer, and the court concerned. (ix) The applicant shall regularly remain present during the trial, and cooperate with the Court to complete the trial for the above offences. (x) Non presence of the applicant or his counsel before the court concerned shall be construed as violation of the present order and the court concerned would be at liberty to take coercive measures in accordance with law. 16. In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. 17. With the directions made above, the anticipatory bail application stands allowed. Order Date :- 26.7.2024/D. Tamang