Allahabad High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5579 of 2020 Amar Chand Singh Central Bureau Of Investigation Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dinesh Kumar Misra : Rahul Srivastava, Sanjay Kumar Yadav Court No. - 82 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for C.B.I. apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, instant anticipatory bail application
Decision
may be finally disposed off. 2. Heard Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for C.B.I. 3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R. No. 004 of 2015 R.C. No. RC/DST/2015/A/0004/CBI/STF/DLI, under Sections 120B IPC read with Sections 409, 420, 466, 467, 469, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) P.C. Act, Police Station STF, New Delhi with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail during trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, applicant was Finance Controller and as per allegation he along with other accused persons misappropriated the public fund but entire allegation leveled against the applicant is totally false. He further submits, during investigation applicant was not arrested by the Investigating Officer however he fully cooperated with the investigation. 5. He further submits, after investigation when charge-sheet was filed then applicant filed instant anticipatory bail application and on 08.09.2020 the co- ordinate Bench of this Court directed that no coercive action shall be taken against him and till today time to time interim order has been extended. 2 ABAIL No. 5579 of 2020 6. He further submits, as there was protection order in favour of the applicant, therefore, applicant is not appearing before the trial court and it cannot be said that applicant misused the liberty granted to him. 7. He further submits, the instant anticipatory bail application is pending since the year 2020 i.e. for last five years and in spite of best effort of the applicant the same could not be disposed off. 8. He further submits, as more than five years have been passed since filing of instant application and more than nine years have been passed since the date of lodgment of the FIR of the present case, therefore, after such huge time gap there is no occasion to send the applicant in jail specially considering the fact that charge-sheet in the present matter has been filed and after submission of charge-sheet custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. 9. He further submits, applicant is ready to give an undertaking that during trial he will fully cooperate with the trial proceedings and will not seek any unnecessary adjournment and on each and every date he will appear before the trial court either in person or through his counsel. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history. 10. He further submits, therefore, considering the above facts, applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till trial. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for C.B.I. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 13. However, as per allegation, applicant was Finance Controller and he along with other accused misappropriated the public fund but he has already retired from service and it appears, during investigation he has not been arrested although there is no allegation that he did not cooperate with the investigation. 14. Further, it reflects, after submission of the charge-sheet when applicant filed instant anticipatory bail application then on 08.09.2020 the co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to pass an order that no coercive action 3 ABAIL No. 5579 of 2020 shall be taken against the applicant and it appears, time to time interim protection granted to him has been extended. 15. Further, however, it reflects, under the pretext of interim protection given by this Court applicant is not appearing before the trial court but considering the fact that the instant anticipatory bail application is pending since 2020 i.e. for last five years and FIR was lodged in the year 2016, the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that now it is not proper to send the applicant in jail after such long gap cannot be completely brushed aside. 16. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history. 17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial. 18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed. 19. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Amar Chand Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions:- i. 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; ii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; iii. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; v. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; 20. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned 4 ABAIL No. 5579 of 2020 shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant. 21. However, it is directed that trial court shall expedite the proceedings of the case and if during trial applicant remain absent then trial court may take coercive measures against him so as trial may be concluded at the earliest. 22. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 23, 2025 AK Pandey (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad