High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:101562 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3307 of 2023 Applicant :- Satyendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Lochan Shukla,Akash Dwivedi,Pankaj Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Satyendra Kumar seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.86 of 2019, under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Sahpau, District- Hathras. 3. It is alleged in the FIR that employees of Gramin Bank of Aryavrat, Branch Jalesar Road, Hathras transferred Rs.2,40,000/- into their account on 15.4.2019 from the account of the informant without his consent and when the informant tried to update his passbook no entry was made therein by the Bank employees and they avoided the same. When the forgery came to know to the informant he made complaints to the high officials of the bank but in vein, hence FIR was lodged and investigation started. After investigation now the charge sheet has been submitted. 4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that FIR initially was lodged under Section 420 I.P.C. wherein anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant by this Court vide order dated 26.6.2020 but however subsequently charge sheet has been submitted under Section 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. The accused applicant is not named in the FIR and no complaint against him has been made to any high official by the informant or any other aggrieved person. As a matter of fact he was working as a clerk in the Gramin Bank of Aryavrat, Branch Jalesar Road, Hathras and he along with the Branch Manager Sachin Kumar was authorized by the high officials of the bank for biometric login and as per bank rules the authorized person for biometric login may modify his own password when he wishes so and the modification of password is compulsory at the interval of every 15 days. It is further submitted that no such amount as alleged in the FIR has been credited in the account of the applicant whereas it has been alleged in the FIR that Rs.2,40,000/- were transferred in the bank account of the delinquent employees of the bank. It is further submitted that in Cr.Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3461 of 2020 the present accused applicant was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 26.6.2020 which was subsequently rejected on 19.1.2023 whereas the charge sheet was already submitted on 9.7.2020 whereupon cognizance was taken by the Court on 20.7.2020. It is further submitted that a departmental charge sheet was also filed against the applicant which was totally illegal report and was protested by the applicant but however, the competent authority of the bank passed an order for the recovery of Rs.2 lac against the applicant on 24.3.2022 and his gratuity also forfeited subsequently. It is further submitted that the co-accused persons Rajpal and Mahesh Chandra have been granted regular bail by this Court. The accused applicant has been cooperative during the course of investigation and now he is entitled for anticipatory bail till the conclusion of the trial after submission of the charge sheet to the Court. It is lastly submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and it is submitted that during course of investigation sufficient evidence has been collected against the accused applicant and it is found that he along with other co- accused persons are responsible for the embezzlement of public money. He has also been found guilty in the departmental proceedings and punitive actions have been taken against him. It is further submitted that he was assigned responsibility of biometric login. Processes under Sections 82/83 CrPC have been issued against the applicant. It is further submitted that the offences levelled against the applicant are very serious in nature and even after filing of the charge sheet, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail. 6. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial. 7. 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. 8. 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, llikelihood 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. 9. It appears from a perusal of the record that in this matter after investigation charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant. Summon was issued against him. Since the applicant did not appear before the Court concerned, punitive actions were taken against him, as he was absconding. Process under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC were issued against him. The conduct of the applicant falls within the ambit of the law promulgated by Hon'ble Apex Court in Prem Shankar Prasad Versus State of Bihar and Another, 2021 SCC OnLine Supreme Court 955. In the facts of the case, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 406, 420 IPC against the accused and thus it was explicit that a prima facie case against the accused was found. From the record, it reveals that the arrest warrant was issued by the Magistrate against the accused and thereafter proceedings under Sections 82, 83 Cr.P.C. had been initiated pursuant to the order passed by the Magistrate. Only thereafter the accused moved an application before the trial court for anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the Sessions Court. However, subsequently anticipatory bail was granted to the aforesaid accused by the High Court and when the matter came before the Hon'ble Apex Court, it was observed like this. "19. Despite the above observations on merits and despite the fact that it was brought to the notice of the High Court that respondent No. 2 - accused is absconding and even the proceedings under sections 82-83 of Cr. P.C. have been initiated as far as back on 10.01.2019, the High Court has just ignored the aforesaid relevant aspects and has granted anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2 - accused by observing that the nature of accusation is arising out of a business transaction. The specific allegations of cheating, etc., which came to be considered by learned Additional Sessions Judge has not at all been considered by the High Court. Even the High Court has just ignored the factum of initiation of proceedings under sections 82-83 of Cr. P.C. by simply observing that "be that as it may". The aforesaid relevant aspect on grant of anticipatory bail ought not to have been ignored by the High Court and ought to have been considered by the High Court very seriously and not casually. 20. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma (Supra), it is observed and held by this court that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of section 82 of Cr. P.C., he is not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail." 10. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I deem it not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. Such a person, who does not cooperate in the matter, is not entitled for any relief from this Court by way of granting anticipatory bail. Prayer made in the application is refused. 11. The anticipatory bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 10.5.2023 Fhd Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad