Govind Mishra Chhotu v. State of U.P., this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of furthe

Applicant :- Smt. Geetika Varshney Opposite Party :- C.B.I. Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for C.B.I. and perused the records.

3. The anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Smt. Geetika Varshney, seeking anticipatory bail, in Special Case No.2A of 2012, RC No. BDI/2010/E/0004, under Section 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Substantive Offence 468 I.P.C., Police Station CBI/BS & FC, New Delhi, during the pendency of her trial before the court below.

4. The applicant argued that the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 03.04.2023 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court. The said order reads as under :- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Present application has been filed by the applicant, namely, Smt. Geetika Varshney invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. stating therein that he reasonably apprehends her arrest by the police for having committed a non- bailable offence registered vide RC No. BDI/2010/E/0004 (Special Case No. 2A of 2012), under Section 120B read with Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station- CBI/BS and FC, New Delhi. Perusal of the record shows that the prayer for anticipatory bail has already been rejected by the court below vide its order dated 10.2.2023. It is further germane to point out here that prior notice of this anticipatory bail application was served in the Office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required. As per the allegation made in the first information report, it is alleged that an FIR was lodged on 6.5.2010 by A.K. Budhraja, Assistant General Manager, Union Bank of India, Agra against Santosh Kumar Jain, Amit Jain, Vivek Jain, Vinod Bala Jain, G.S. Mehta, S.P. Sharma and others with regards to fraud of Rs.1260.58 lakhs perpetrated by Directors and Officials of Alka Group of Company with Gandhi Eye Hospital, Branch Aligarh of the Bank stating that false and forged transport receipt of M/s Delhi-Indore Transport Company were fraudulently prepared, false invoices and bills of exchange of M/s NTF Pvt. Ltd., M/s Arihant Narrow Fabricks Pvt. Ltd., M/s Altra Auto Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Paras Polymers Ltd. showing supply of materials to M/s AIL and M/s ALPL were used as genuine by Santosh Kumar Jain to avail finance from Union Bank of India. The applicant was not named in the FIR. The investigation concluded and charge sheet was submitted against the applicant and other persons including the Companies. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that applicant is not named in the FIR. After lodging of the first information report, the C.B.I, investigated the matter and on conclusion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet against the applicant on 26.9.2022 against 16 persons including the applicant. On the basis of said charge sheet, Special Judge, C.B.I. has taken cognizance. After submission of the charge sheet and summoning of the applicant, one of the co-accused Deepa Jain filed an Anticipatory Bail Application No. 8220 of 2022 before this Court. The aforesaid anticipatory bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.11.2022. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, co-accused Deepa Jain filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 11378 of 2022 before Hon'ble Apex Court. The Apex Court after hearing the parties issued notices to the respondents and in the meanwhile no coercive action was directed to be taken against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the aforesaid appeal was finally heard by the Hon'ble Apex Court and has been disposed of with a direction that the petitioner should report to the Investigating Officer at least on three dates . Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 14.2.2023, 15.2.2023, 16.2.2023 at 11:30 a.m. and subject to the cooperation, she has been enlarged on bail on such terms and condition, which trial court may impose. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the case of the applicant stands on same footing as that of co-accused, who has already been granted bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as such the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail. Per contra, learned AGA as well as counsel for the C.B.I. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that looking to the seriousness and gravity of the offence, the applicant is not entitled for indulgence of this Court. Looking to the facts of the case and submissions made by the counsel for the applicant, a case for anticipatory bail to the applicant is made out. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. List on 28.4.2023. Till the next date of listing, the Court directs that in the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime number, she shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer subject to the following conditions that : (1). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (2). The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC. (3). In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC. (4). The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law. (5) In the event the applicant is having her passports, she will have to surrender the same before the concerned SP/SSP of the District. In the event, the applicant breaches or attempts to breach any of the aforesaid conditions or willfully violates above conditions or abstains herself from the trial, it would be open for the Investigating Officer or the concerned authority to apply before the trial court for cancellation of interim protection and the trial court has every liberty and freedom to revoke the anticipatory bail after recording the reasons for the same."

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had been cooperating in the present matter and there has been no objection by the trial court or the investigating agency regarding any non-cooperation of the applicant to the trial court. It is submitted that as such the applicant had been diligently complying the directions of this Court and the conditions as leveled in the order granting interim anticipatory bail were being followed by him.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for C.B.I. could not point out any such incident for non-cooperation by the applicant before the trial court.

7. Perused the order dated 03.04.2023 by which the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail.

8. In view of the fact, the applicant Smt. Geetika Varshney had cooperated before the trial court. He is directed to continue cooperation, the order dated 03.04.2023 is made absolute till conclusion of trial on furnishing a fresh 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 applicant shall appear before the court concerned within a period of two weeks from today and file certified copy of this order for its compliance. (ii) the applicant shall make herself available on each and every date fixed in the matter by the court concerned. (iii) 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. (iv) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if she has a passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the concerned court.

9. In case, the applicant does not co-operate in the proceedings of the trial, this order shall stand automatically recalled/vacated and the applicant shall be taken into custody, forthwith.

10. Further, in default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

11. The court concerned shall not be prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

12. The present anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 Manoj (Samit Gopal,J.) MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Applicant :- Smt. Geetika Varshney Opposite Party :- C.B.I. Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for C.B.I. and perused the records.

3. The anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Smt. Geetika Varshney, seeking anticipatory bail, in Special Case No.2A of 2012, RC No. BDI/2010/E/0004, under Section 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Substantive Offence 468 I.P.C., Police Station CBI/BS & FC, New Delhi, during the pendency of her trial before the court below.

4. The applicant argued that the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 03.04.2023 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court. The said order reads as under :- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Present application has been filed by the applicant, namely, Smt. Geetika Varshney invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. stating therein that he reasonably apprehends her arrest by the police for having committed a non- bailable offence registered vide RC No. BDI/2010/E/0004 (Special Case No. 2A of 2012), under Section 120B read with Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station- CBI/BS and FC, New Delhi. Perusal of the record shows that the prayer for anticipatory bail has already been rejected by the court below vide its order dated 10.2.2023. It is further germane to point out here that prior notice of this anticipatory bail application was served in the Office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required. As per the allegation made in the first information report, it is alleged that an FIR was lodged on 6.5.2010 by A.K. Budhraja, Assistant General Manager, Union Bank of India, Agra against Santosh Kumar Jain, Amit Jain, Vivek Jain, Vinod Bala Jain, G.S. Mehta, S.P. Sharma and others with regards to fraud of Rs.1260.58 lakhs perpetrated by Directors and Officials of Alka Group of Company with Gandhi Eye Hospital, Branch Aligarh of the Bank stating that false and forged transport receipt of M/s Delhi-Indore Transport Company were fraudulently prepared, false invoices and bills of exchange of M/s NTF Pvt. Ltd., M/s Arihant Narrow Fabricks Pvt. Ltd., M/s Altra Auto Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Paras Polymers Ltd. showing supply of materials to M/s AIL and M/s ALPL were used as genuine by Santosh Kumar Jain to avail finance from Union Bank of India. The applicant was not named in the FIR. The investigation concluded and charge sheet was submitted against the applicant and other persons including the Companies. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that applicant is not named in the FIR. After lodging of the first information report, the C.B.I, investigated the matter and on conclusion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet against the applicant on 26.9.2022 against 16 persons including the applicant. On the basis of said charge sheet, Special Judge, C.B.I. has taken cognizance. After submission of the charge sheet and summoning of the applicant, one of the co-accused Deepa Jain filed an Anticipatory Bail Application No. 8220 of 2022 before this Court. The aforesaid anticipatory bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.11.2022. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, co-accused Deepa Jain filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 11378 of 2022 before Hon'ble Apex Court. The Apex Court after hearing the parties issued notices to the respondents and in the meanwhile no coercive action was directed to be taken against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the aforesaid appeal was finally heard by the Hon'ble Apex Court and has been disposed of with a direction that the petitioner should report to the Investigating Officer at least on three dates . Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 14.2.2023, 15.2.2023, 16.2.2023 at 11:30 a.m. and subject to the cooperation, she has been enlarged on bail on such terms and condition, which trial court may impose. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the case of the applicant stands on same footing as that of co-accused, who has already been granted bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as such the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail. Per contra, learned AGA as well as counsel for the C.B.I. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that looking to the seriousness and gravity of the offence, the applicant is not entitled for indulgence of this Court. Looking to the facts of the case and submissions made by the counsel for the applicant, a case for anticipatory bail to the applicant is made out. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. List on 28.4.2023. Till the next date of listing, the Court directs that in the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime number, she shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer subject to the following conditions that : (1). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (2). The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC. (3). In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC. (4). The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law. (5) In the event the applicant is having her passports, she will have to surrender the same before the concerned SP/SSP of the District. In the event, the applicant breaches or attempts to breach any of the aforesaid conditions or willfully violates above conditions or abstains herself from the trial, it would be open for the Investigating Officer or the concerned authority to apply before the trial court for cancellation of interim protection and the trial court has every liberty and freedom to revoke the anticipatory bail after recording the reasons for the same."

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had been cooperating in the present matter and there has been no objection by the trial court or the investigating agency regarding any non-cooperation of the applicant to the trial court. It is submitted that as such the applicant had been diligently complying the directions of this Court and the conditions as leveled in the order granting interim anticipatory bail were being followed by him.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for C.B.I. could not point out any such incident for non-cooperation by the applicant before the trial court.

7. Perused the order dated 03.04.2023 by which the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail.

8. In view of the fact, the applicant Smt. Geetika Varshney had cooperated before the trial court. He is directed to continue cooperation, the order dated 03.04.2023 is made absolute till conclusion of trial on furnishing a fresh 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 applicant shall appear before the court concerned within a period of two weeks from today and file certified copy of this order for its compliance. (ii) the applicant shall make herself available on each and every date fixed in the matter by the court concerned. (iii) 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. (iv) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if she has a passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the concerned court.

9. In case, the applicant does not co-operate in the proceedings of the trial, this order shall stand automatically recalled/vacated and the applicant shall be taken into custody, forthwith.

10. Further, in default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

11. The court concerned shall not be prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

12. The present anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 Manoj (Samit Gopal,J.) MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad