State of U.P v. D.C. Varshney) arising out of Case Crime No

1-Heard Mr. V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. K.K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record. 2-This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application has been moved by the applicant after rejecting his anticipatory bail application by the order dated 23.01.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge, Special Court No. 1 (P.C. Act), Meerut seeking Anticipatory Bail in Criminal Case No. 161 of 2016 (State of U.P. vs. D.C. Varshney) arising out of Case Crime No. 186 of 1993, under Section 409 I.P.C. and Section 13(1) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Khandauli, District Agra. 3-The brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that a first information report was lodged on 04.04.1990 at Case Crime No. 49 of 1990 for the offence under Sections 395, 504, 406 and 342 I.P.C. at Police Station Khandauli, District Agra by two Home Guards, namely, Ramesh Chandra and Kamal Singh against unknown persons alleging inter-alia that in the intervening night of 02/03.04.1990, when they were on their duty, some unknown persons suddenly came there, caught them and threatened them that if they raise noise, they will kill them. The accused persons tied the hands of Ramesh Chandra & Kamal Singh and locked them in a room. F.I.R. also alleges that when two other security guards, namely, Murari Singh and Moolchand reached at the store for their duty, they opened the store, untied the security guards and noticed that a large number of items, for which they were deployed to secure, were lifted and scattered from the steel structure. F.I.R. further alleges that on 03.04.1990, both the home guards went to inform Mr. D.C. Varshney, Junior Engineer about the said incident, but he was not at his ofÏce. After that, they tried to reach him at his home, but he was also not at his home. Thereafter, on 04.04.1990, the information about the aforesaid theft was given to Chief Sub-Engineer of Electricity Department, who said that the quantity and price of the goods, which were looted, will be noted down after its inspection. 4-It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that at the relevant point of time, the applicant was a junior engineer. The investigating ofÏcer, after culmination of investigation, has submitted a final report dated 05.04.1990 with an opinion that it seems that the aforesaid crime is not of theft or robbery but the goods were stolen by the employees of electricity department, therefore, if any evidence is found against the employees of electricity department, then further action will be taken against them. Thereafter, Mr. Satish Chandra Sharma, Sub Divisional OfÏcer, Electricity Transmission Division has submitted its report raising his suspicion about the involvement of present applicant. On his complaint, the investigating ofÏcer again invested the matter and after due enquiry, again submitted final report dated 26.10.1990 with a finding that the aforesaid crime, against the present applicant, could not be proved, hence, the investigating ofÏcer has closed the investigation against the present applicant. Thereafter, a second first information report was lodged by the opposite party no. 2-S.C. Sharma on 24.07.1993 at Case Crime No. 186 of 1993 for the offence under Section 409 I.P.C. and Section 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station Khandauli, District Agra against the applicant for the same crime, for which police has already submitted its final reports for two times. The applicant, against the aforesaid case, filed a writ petition being Writ No. Nil of 1993, whereby, the arrest of the applicant was stayed in both of the aforesaid Case Crime Nos. 49 of 1990 and 136 of 1993 vide order of this Court dated 23.08.1993. Thereafter on 05.12.1994, the investigating ofÏcer, after due investigation, submitted charge-sheet no. 156 against the present applicant on 05.12.1994, which was challenged by him by way of Miscellaneous Case/Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 4190 of 2002 (D.C.Varshney vs. State of U.P. and Another), in which the proceedings were stayed. However, the same was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 02.12.2013 but counsel for the applicant could not inform to the applicant about the order dated 2.12.2013, hence, applicant could not file recall application at that time. As soon as, applicant came to know about the order dated 2.12.2013, he has moved a recall application dated 12.09.2024 to recall the order dated 2.12.2013 but subsequently, applicant has not pressed the said recall application and decided to face trial. 5-On the strength of aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the applicant also pointed out that the applicant has retired from his services long back in the year 2004. No dues certificate had also been issued to the applicant at the time of his retirement and no departmental enquiry is pending against him. Though at present applicant is aged about 81 years but as per date of birth mentioned in Aadhar Card of the applicant, he is aged about 79 years. Under the facts of the case, the applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest. Lastly, it is submitted that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he would not misuse the liberty and will co-operate with the trial. 6-Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P., who has accepted notice of this case on 20.02.2025 opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant by contending that investigating ofÏcer after due investigation submitted charge sheet in this case on the basis of cogent material against the applicant, therefore as on date cognizable offence is made out against the applicant and it can not be presumed that he has been falsely implicated. 7-Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that it is not in dispute that two times final report has been filed by the police. Applicant has retired in the year 2004. At present, he is aged about 80 years and is ready to cooperate with the trial. 8-Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, reasonable apprehension of arrest of the applicant, taking into consideration the gravity of offence, nature of accusation, age of the applicant as noted above and there being no possibility of his fleeing from justice as well as reasons noted above, this Court is of the view that prima facie the applicant has made out a case for granting anticipatory bail during trial. 9-In the event of arrest of the applicant-D.C. Varshney involved in the aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court below with the following conditions :- (i)That the applicant shall appear on the next date fixed before the trial court and cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court on each dates unless inevitable. (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 tamper with the evidence. (iii) That the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the concerned Court below will be at liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail of the applicant after recording reasons. 10-It is clarified that observations made in this order at this stage is limited to the purpose of determination of this anticipatory bail application only and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The concerned trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions according to law on the basis of materials / evidences on record. 11-With the aforesaid observations and directions, this anticipatory bail application is allowed. 12-Considering that it is an old matter of the year 1990, the concerned trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant expeditiously without granting any adjournment to either of the parties. 13-OfÏce is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned trial court for necessary information and compliance. Order Date :- 5.5.2025 Saurabh SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1-Heard Mr. V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. K.K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record. 2-This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application has been moved by the applicant after rejecting his anticipatory bail application by the order dated 23.01.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge, Special Court No. 1 (P.C. Act), Meerut seeking Anticipatory Bail in Criminal Case No. 161 of 2016 (State of U.P. vs. D.C. Varshney) arising out of Case Crime No. 186 of 1993, under Section 409 I.P.C. and Section 13(1) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Khandauli, District Agra. 3-The brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that a first information report was lodged on 04.04.1990 at Case Crime No. 49 of 1990 for the offence under Sections 395, 504, 406 and 342 I.P.C. at Police Station Khandauli, District Agra by two Home Guards, namely, Ramesh Chandra and Kamal Singh against unknown persons alleging inter-alia that in the intervening night of 02/03.04.1990, when they were on their duty, some unknown persons suddenly came there, caught them and threatened them that if they raise noise, they will kill them. The accused persons tied the hands of Ramesh Chandra & Kamal Singh and locked them in a room. F.I.R. also alleges that when two other security guards, namely, Murari Singh and Moolchand reached at the store for their duty, they opened the store, untied the security guards and noticed that a large number of items, for which they were deployed to secure, were lifted and scattered from the steel structure. F.I.R. further alleges that on 03.04.1990, both the home guards went to inform Mr. D.C. Varshney, Junior Engineer about the said incident, but he was not at his ofÏce. After that, they tried to reach him at his home, but he was also not at his home. Thereafter, on 04.04.1990, the information about the aforesaid theft was given to Chief Sub-Engineer of Electricity Department, who said that the quantity and price of the goods, which were looted, will be noted down after its inspection. 4-It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that at the relevant point of time, the applicant was a junior engineer. The investigating ofÏcer, after culmination of investigation, has submitted a final report dated 05.04.1990 with an opinion that it seems that the aforesaid crime is not of theft or robbery but the goods were stolen by the employees of electricity department, therefore, if any evidence is found against the employees of electricity department, then further action will be taken against them. Thereafter, Mr. Satish Chandra Sharma, Sub Divisional OfÏcer, Electricity Transmission Division has submitted its report raising his suspicion about the involvement of present applicant. On his complaint, the investigating ofÏcer again invested the matter and after due enquiry, again submitted final report dated 26.10.1990 with a finding that the aforesaid crime, against the present applicant, could not be proved, hence, the investigating ofÏcer has closed the investigation against the present applicant. Thereafter, a second first information report was lodged by the opposite party no. 2-S.C. Sharma on 24.07.1993 at Case Crime No. 186 of 1993 for the offence under Section 409 I.P.C. and Section 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station Khandauli, District Agra against the applicant for the same crime, for which police has already submitted its final reports for two times. The applicant, against the aforesaid case, filed a writ petition being Writ No. Nil of 1993, whereby, the arrest of the applicant was stayed in both of the aforesaid Case Crime Nos. 49 of 1990 and 136 of 1993 vide order of this Court dated 23.08.1993. Thereafter on 05.12.1994, the investigating ofÏcer, after due investigation, submitted charge-sheet no. 156 against the present applicant on 05.12.1994, which was challenged by him by way of Miscellaneous Case/Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 4190 of 2002 (D.C.Varshney vs. State of U.P. and Another), in which the proceedings were stayed. However, the same was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 02.12.2013 but counsel for the applicant could not inform to the applicant about the order dated 2.12.2013, hence, applicant could not file recall application at that time. As soon as, applicant came to know about the order dated 2.12.2013, he has moved a recall application dated 12.09.2024 to recall the order dated 2.12.2013 but subsequently, applicant has not pressed the said recall application and decided to face trial. 5-On the strength of aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the applicant also pointed out that the applicant has retired from his services long back in the year 2004. No dues certificate had also been issued to the applicant at the time of his retirement and no departmental enquiry is pending against him. Though at present applicant is aged about 81 years but as per date of birth mentioned in Aadhar Card of the applicant, he is aged about 79 years. Under the facts of the case, the applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest. Lastly, it is submitted that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he would not misuse the liberty and will co-operate with the trial. 6-Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P., who has accepted notice of this case on 20.02.2025 opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant by contending that investigating ofÏcer after due investigation submitted charge sheet in this case on the basis of cogent material against the applicant, therefore as on date cognizable offence is made out against the applicant and it can not be presumed that he has been falsely implicated. 7-Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that it is not in dispute that two times final report has been filed by the police. Applicant has retired in the year 2004. At present, he is aged about 80 years and is ready to cooperate with the trial. 8-Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, reasonable apprehension of arrest of the applicant, taking into consideration the gravity of offence, nature of accusation, age of the applicant as noted above and there being no possibility of his fleeing from justice as well as reasons noted above, this Court is of the view that prima facie the applicant has made out a case for granting anticipatory bail during trial. 9-In the event of arrest of the applicant-D.C. Varshney involved in the aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court below with the following conditions :- (i)That the applicant shall appear on the next date fixed before the trial court and cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court on each dates unless inevitable. (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 tamper with the evidence. (iii) That the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the concerned Court below will be at liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail of the applicant after recording reasons. 10-It is clarified that observations made in this order at this stage is limited to the purpose of determination of this anticipatory bail application only and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The concerned trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions according to law on the basis of materials / evidences on record. 11-With the aforesaid observations and directions, this anticipatory bail application is allowed. 12-Considering that it is an old matter of the year 1990, the concerned trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant expeditiously without granting any adjournment to either of the parties. 13-OfÏce is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned trial court for necessary information and compliance. Order Date :- 5.5.2025 Saurabh SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad