High Court
Case Details
Vakalatnama filed today by Mr. Arun Sinha and Mr. Siddharth Sinha, Advocates on behalf of the applicant is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. The present application under Section 482 BNSS has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No. 128/2024, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) BNS, P.S. Ram Janam Bhumi, District Ayodhya. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 18.9.2024, following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:- "Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. Heard Sri S.C. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Himanshu Bora, Sahil and Abhishek, learned counsel the applicant and Sri Alok Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. The present bail application under Section 482 BNSS has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/F.I.R No.128/2024, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) BNS, P.S. Ram Janam Bhumi, District Ayodhya. In the prosecution case it is alleged that named accused persons as well as agency named as Yash Enterprises had installed 6400 Bamboo Lights and 96 Govo Projector Light on Rampath and Bhaktipath respectively. In the inspection on 09.05.2024, it has been found that 3800 Bamboo Lights and 36 Govo Projector Lights have been stolen. It is alleged that the said agency has obtained payment by installing only 2600 Bamboo Lights. Later on, bill of 3800 Bamboo Lights had been produced which work was not substantiated. During verification, it was found that for obtaining extra payment, forged bill voucher has been produced by the accused which has been found forged and to save themselves the accused has lodged an F.I.R. No.126 of 2024. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is not named in the F.I.R. The applicant has only assisted M/s Yash Enterprises in completion of work as a consultant. He has no other connection with the firm. The offences are triable by magistrate. It is submitted that in order to cover up the failure to safeguard the installed infrastructure, including the stolen bamboo lights, and to avoid payment for the work order, a fictitious F.I.R. was registered as a counterblast to F.I.R. No.126 of 2024 filed by Shekhar Sharma, the sole proprietor of Yash Enterprises. He submits that the anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant has been rejected by the learned sessions court without assigning any cogent reason. The dispute between the officers of the Development Authority and the co- accused is purely civil in nature. The F.I.R. on the face of it is false as satisfactory completion of work has been certified by the Ayodhya Development Authority. The contractors running bill duly certified is on the record. He also submits that applicant has no criminal history. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that applicant will cooperate in the investigation. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application however, submits that investigation is going on. He prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file counter affidavit. List on 03.10.2024. Considering the above aspect of the matter, perusal of the record as well as the fact that applicant has no criminal history, offecnes are triable by magistrate, undertaking given by the applicant that he will cooperate in the investigation as also the judgment of Apex Court passed in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant. Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned however, the applicant is directed to report to the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from today. The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection." State counsel has failed to demonstrate from the counter affidavit that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail after thorough considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to submit any fact that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceedings or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case. In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Nikhil Charan till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that 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 officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this order. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Shravan
Vakalatnama filed today by Mr. Arun Sinha and Mr. Siddharth Sinha, Advocates on behalf of the applicant is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. The present application under Section 482 BNSS has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No. 128/2024, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) BNS, P.S. Ram Janam Bhumi, District Ayodhya. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 18.9.2024, following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:- "Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. Heard Sri S.C. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Himanshu Bora, Sahil and Abhishek, learned counsel the applicant and Sri Alok Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. The present bail application under Section 482 BNSS has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/F.I.R No.128/2024, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) BNS, P.S. Ram Janam Bhumi, District Ayodhya. In the prosecution case it is alleged that named accused persons as well as agency named as Yash Enterprises had installed 6400 Bamboo Lights and 96 Govo Projector Light on Rampath and Bhaktipath respectively. In the inspection on 09.05.2024, it has been found that 3800 Bamboo Lights and 36 Govo Projector Lights have been stolen. It is alleged that the said agency has obtained payment by installing only 2600 Bamboo Lights. Later on, bill of 3800 Bamboo Lights had been produced which work was not substantiated. During verification, it was found that for obtaining extra payment, forged bill voucher has been produced by the accused which has been found forged and to save themselves the accused has lodged an F.I.R. No.126 of 2024. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is not named in the F.I.R. The applicant has only assisted M/s Yash Enterprises in completion of work as a consultant. He has no other connection with the firm. The offences are triable by magistrate. It is submitted that in order to cover up the failure to safeguard the installed infrastructure, including the stolen bamboo lights, and to avoid payment for the work order, a fictitious F.I.R. was registered as a counterblast to F.I.R. No.126 of 2024 filed by Shekhar Sharma, the sole proprietor of Yash Enterprises. He submits that the anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant has been rejected by the learned sessions court without assigning any cogent reason. The dispute between the officers of the Development Authority and the co- accused is purely civil in nature. The F.I.R. on the face of it is false as satisfactory completion of work has been certified by the Ayodhya Development Authority. The contractors running bill duly certified is on the record. He also submits that applicant has no criminal history. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that applicant will cooperate in the investigation. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application however, submits that investigation is going on. He prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file counter affidavit. List on 03.10.2024. Considering the above aspect of the matter, perusal of the record as well as the fact that applicant has no criminal history, offecnes are triable by magistrate, undertaking given by the applicant that he will cooperate in the investigation as also the judgment of Apex Court passed in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant. Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned however, the applicant is directed to report to the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from today. The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection." State counsel has failed to demonstrate from the counter affidavit that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail after thorough considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to submit any fact that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceedings or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case. In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Nikhil Charan till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that 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 officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this order. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Shravan