High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:130212 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7573 of 2024 Applicant :- Pravesh Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants - Pravesh Kumar and Rajendra seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 474 of 2019, under Sections 420, 406 IPC, Police Station Najibabad, District- Bijnor. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicantd are false.It is further submitted that no wrongful gain has been obtained by the present applicants. It is further submitted that during course of investigation, present applicants have been co- operative. It is submitted that during investigation notice under Section 41-A CrPC was given to the applicants and they did not misuse the said liberty. No witness has stated before the Investigating Officer that money was ever paid by any person straightway to the present applicants and they never collected any money from the depositors or agents of the company. Merely due to the reason that the applicants were the Directors of the Company, charge sheet has been submitted against them. It is further submitted that applicants have no criminal antecedent to their credit. Alleged offences are punishable upto seven years. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail application and it is submitted that the applicants were the Directors in the Kalpwat Real Estate Ltd. The officers, who are working as high officials in the aforesaid company, are responsible for the business and deposition of money and repayment of the same. It is further submitted that about seven crores rupees have been mis-appropriated and a large number of public has been cheated by the present applicants and other officials of the company and no money has been repaid so far to any of the poor customers. It is further submitted that offence relates to misappropriation of public exchequer; it is very serious and grave and present applicants have actively participated in the commission of alleged crime and they are, as such, not entitled for anticipatory bail. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record. 6. It reveals from the perusal of the record that several persons opened their account in Kalpwat Real Estate Ltd., Branch Office- Najibabad, Bijnor through the agents and they invested about Rs. 6.5 crore in the aforesaid Company but after maturity, no payment was made by the Company to the account holders. Some agents of the Company lodged F.I.R. against the eight persons on 11.09.2019 and investigation started, which is culminated into charge-sheet. It also reveals that during investigation notice under Section 41-A CrPC was given to the applicants but no instance of misuse of the said liberty has been brought to the notice of the Court. Alleged offences are punishable with the imprisonment for maximum period of seven years. No custodial interrogation of the applicants is required in the matter. 7. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial. It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion. 8. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that : "11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170 CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173 CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87 CrPC that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution. 12. Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170 CrPC, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this." 9. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till the end of trial. 10. The application is allowed accordingly. 11. In the event of arrest of the applicants, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall make themselves available before the Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the trial. (ii) The applicants 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office. (iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned. 12. In case of default of any of the conditions, the same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicants. Order Date :- 12.8.2024 safi