High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6655 of 2020 Applicant :- Ramesh Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar,Rajeev Ratan Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record. This anticipatory bail application under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 205 of 2020, under sections- 3/7 Essential Commodity Act and Section 26A of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and Section 3A Fertilizer Moment Order, 1973, Police Station Lohata, District Varanasi. On 13.10.2020, following order was passed: "Heard Mr. Rajeev Ratan Shukla, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A for the State. This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant Ramesh Singh in connection with Case Crime No. 0205 of 2020 under Section 3/7 Essential Commodity Act and Clause 26A of Fertilizer (Control) order, 1985, and Clause 3A Fertilizer Movement Order, 1973 P.S. Lohata, District Varanasi. It transpires from the record that District Agricultural Officer lodged an FIR dated 20.8.2020 which was registered as Case Crime NO. 0205 of 2020. In the aforesaid FIR applicant Ramesh Singh has been nominated as the sole named accused. Surprisingly, in the column of date of occurrence printed in the FIR no date has been mentioned. However, in the body of FIR it is alleged that upon enquiry regarding sale of 60 bags of Nitrogen (Urea) to Ganesh, who is an agriculturist of adjoining district- Sant Ravidas Nagar Bhadohi, it was discovered that aforesaid sale is illegal and violative of the charging Sections. Learned counsel for applicant submits that though the applicant has been named in the FIR but he is innocent. Allegations made in the FIR are ex parte, inasmuch as no opportunity was extended to the applicant, before lodging the FIR, to produce the relevant document. He further contends that the offence complained of by the first informant is punishable with punishment which may extend up to seven years. He, therefore, contends that as per the provision contained under Sections 40 and 41 Cr.P.C custodial arrest of the applicant is not necessary. F.I.R was lodged on 5.8.2020, in spite of the fact that a period of more than two months have rolled by from the date of lodging of F.I.R., police has not collected any such material on the basis of which complicity of the present applicant can be said to be established in the above mentioned case crime number. Investigation is still going on but the custodial arrest of the applicant is not absolutely necessary. Applicant has definite apprehension of his arrest by the Police. Applicant undertakes to co-operate with the investigation. Applicant has no criminal history. As such, liberty of applicant be protected by extending him the liberty of anticipatory bail. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. However, he could not dispute the facts as noted above as well as the factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant. Matter requires consideration. Notice on behalf of opposite party no.1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A. Learned A.G.A. may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Applicant will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List on the date fixed in the notice. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant." Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. It is further submitted that on 13.10.2020, the applicant was granted interim protection and counter affidavit was called for. But till today, no counter affidavit has been filed by the learned AGA. During course of investigation, the applicant was never arrested and he fully cooperated with the investigation. The applicant undertakes to cooperate in the investigation and during trial and undertakes that if he is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of the same. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration. In the instant case, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. In the event of arrest, the applicant- Ramesh Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation; (2) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (3) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court. (4) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court. (5) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant. (6) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. (7) 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 18.11.2022 Shravan Digitally signed by SHRAVAN KUMAR Date: 2022.11.18 14:35:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad