High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8199 of 2022 Applicant :- Dharmendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jata Shankar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Om Prakash Tripathi,J.
Legal Reasoning
Anticipatory bail being an extraordinary privilege should be granted only in exceptional cases the judicial discretion conferred upon the Court has to be properly exercised after proper application of mind to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the Court must record the reasons there for. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. It is also held that the privilege of pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases as held in P Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24 and Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1. Considering the nature and gravity of accusation, specific and active role attributed to the applicant, the alleged accusation does not appear to be prima facie false or groundless, apprehension of arrest of the applicant has not found on reasonable ground. No case has been made out for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. Undeserving and unwarranted sympathy towards accused is not expected by Law. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of accusation, submission of the parties and materials available on record, applicant Dharmendra Singh does not deserve anticipatory bail. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant is rejected. Order Date :- 2.9.2022 Priya Digitally signed by PRIYA KUSHWAHA Date: 2022.09.05 17:35:40 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
Heard Sri Jata Shankar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State. Apprehending his arrest, applicant Dharmendra Singh has moved present application for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Case Crime No.277 of 2022, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Mahoba, District Mahoba. Brief facts mentioned in the FIR is that father of the informant namely Pramod Kumar Udainiya was working as an agent of MDS and ASDS Infra Ltd. Company situated at Mahoba. Informant's father had secured the deposit of several villagers in the said Company and after maturity, due to non-cooperation of Director of the Company i.e. applicant, informant's father failed to return the money deposited in the said Company. Villagers started making pressure upon him and thereafter, giving threatening of dire consequences to the father of the informant. Being compelled, father of the informant lodged FIR against the applicant which was registered as Case Crime No.192 of 2022 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC, in which, Directors tried to compromise with the informant's father. Upon tremendous undue pressure of the applicant, informant committed suicide by hanging himself in the night of 11.07.2022. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that no date of deposit and date of maturity has been mentioned in the FIR. Name of the investors also not mentioned in the FIR. There is no ingredients of Section 306 IPC against the applicant. There is no dying declaration of the deceased. In pursuance of the aforesaid FIR, police is trying to arrest the applicant. It is also submitted that applicant has been falsely roped in this case and there is no prima facie offence against the applicant as alleged in the FIR. Entire case of the prosecution is mala fide with intention to harass the applicant. Accusation of the applicant is with the object of humiliation. Entire prosecution story is concocted and false. Applicant has no criminal history. There is no possibility of the applicant to flee from justice. Arrest of the applicant is not warranted. Applicant shall cooperate with the investigation/trial proceedings. Apprehension of arrest is based on reasonable ground. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant objected the anticipatory bail application and submitted that deceased had left a suicide note in his handwriting, which is denied by the applicant. In the suicide note, it has been mentioned that about Rs.40,00,000/- is due towards deposit made by the deceased, which is not paid by the applicant, who is MD of the Company. From the perusal of Case Crime No.192 of 2022, P.S. Charkhari, District Mahoba, name and amount of depositors have been mentioned and in Case Crime No.223 of 2021, name and amount of several persons have also been mentioned in the FIR. One FIR has also been lodged as Case Crime No.195 of 2020, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Hamirpur relating to fraud and cheating committed by the applicant and Company. Applicant has also moved a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.10128 of 2022 for quashing of the FIR which has been dismissed on 03.08.2022 by the Division Bench of this Court. Arrest of the applicant is not based on concrete/reasonable grounds. Offence committed by the applicant is of serious nature. Charge sheet has not been filed. Learned AGA for the State has also relied upon the following rulings :- Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2013) 7 SCC 439 "Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be viewed with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as a grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country." Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in the white-collar crimes, which has affected the fibre of the country's economic structure. Economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. In State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal 1987 SCC (Cri) 364. Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that "the entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white-collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest." Central Chattopadhyay SC Criminal Appeal No.1711 of 2019 Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ramendu It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "companies, with the dishonest intention of deceiving and alluring investors, as well as agents and business developers be-fools the investors. Such economic offences having a deep- rooted conspiracy and involving a huge loss of investors money seriously. Company-respondent played a key role in the promotion of chit fund scam thereby cheating a large number of innocent depositors and misappropriating their hard earned money". Thus, anticipatory bail application lacks merit and is liable to be rejected.