Vimal Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P.), which was allowed by this Court vide order dated
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:111318 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6540 of 2024 Applicant :- Vimal Kumar Shukla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State, opposite party-1. 2. Perused the record. 3. This repeat application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant-Vimal Kumar Shukla seeking his enlargement on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 57A of 2006 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120B/34 I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Police Station- Reoti, District-Ballia, during the pendency of trial. 4. Record shows that applicant had earlier approached this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 53887 of 2019 (Vimal Kumar Shukla Vs. State of U.P.), which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 04.12.2019. However, the anticipatory bail so granted to the applicant was till the submission of the police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. 5. Learned counsel for applicant contends that police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has been submitted against applicant on 12.05.2022. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to paragraph 23 of the affidavit filed in support of present repeat application for anticipatory bail that no coercive process has been issued against applicant by court below. According to the learned counsel for applicant, there are as many as 74 persons named in the F.I.R. Most of the named accused have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. Copy of some of the bail orders have been brought on record, which are from page 41 onwards. 6. With reference to above, the learned counsel for applicant contends that the case of present applicant is similar and identical to that of co-accused, who have been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court. He also contends that there is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which case of present applicant can be so distinguished from the other named accused, who have already been granted anticipatory bail. On the above premise, he thus submits that liberty of applicant is also liable to be protected by extending the benefit of anticipatory bail in his favour.
Legal Reasoning
7. Learned counsel for applicant further submits that occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings is alleged to have occurred in between 2002 to 2005. The F.I.R. in respect of the said occurrence was lodged on 09.05.2006. On date, a period of more than 20 years has rolled by from the date of F.I.R. At no point of time, any application was submitted by Investigating Officer before court concerned to the effect that applicant has violated the conditions of anticipatory bail granted by this Court or custodial arrest of applicant is necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. With reference to material on record, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that custodial arrest of applicant is not absolutely necessary for conducting the trial. On the above premise, he, therefore, contends that liberty of applicant is therefore liable to be protected by this Court by extending the benefit of anticipatory bail. 8. 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 not absolutely necessary during the pendency of trial. As such, the benefit of anticipatory bail is liable to be extended in favour of applicant. In case the applicant is granted the benefit of anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the same and shall co-operate with the trial. 9. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that applicant is Government Employee and he has been charge-sheeted under Section 13 (2) of P.C. Act. Considering the nature and gravity of offence, applicant does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, the learned A.G.A. could not point out from the record that sanction has been accorded by the competent authority for the criminal prosecution of applicant or not. The learned A.G.A. also could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon consideration of material on record, evidence, gravity and nature of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant and coupled with the fact that occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceeding is alleged to have occurred in between 2000 to 2005, the F.I.R. was lodged on 09.05.2006, a period of more than 20 years has rolled by since the date of F.I.R., there are as many as 74 accused named in the F.I.R., most of the named accused have been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail, learned A.G.A. could not point out from record any such distinguishing feature on the basis of which case of present applicant can be so distinguished from the other named accused, who have already been granted anticipatory bail so as to deny anticipatory bail to applicant, the clean antecedents of applicant, the police report 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 crystallized, yet in spite of above the learned A.G.A. for State could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant, the judgement of Apex Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 5), therefore irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to present application for anticipatory bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, the liberty of applicant is liable to be protected. I1. Accordingly, the present application for anticipatory bail is allowed. 12. In view of above, in the event of arrest, applicant- Vimal Kumar Shukla shall be released on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 57A of 2006 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120B/34 I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Police Station- Reoti, District-Ballia 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 :- 9.7.2024 YK