Deepak Sharma v. State of U.P & Anr.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State- opposite party, and perused the material placed on record.

This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 16 of 2014, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 120-B, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Rauza, District Shahjahanpur.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The name of the applicant surfaced during the course of investigation. At the relevant time the applicant was Branch Manager of the company known as Ramel Industries Limited and was paid monthly salary. The applicant is not responsible for the viability of the business model or failure of the company to make good on its promises of higher returns. No amount was credited in the account of the applicant. The applicant is not a beneficiary of any illicit transactions. The amount was deposited in the account of the alleged company. At this stage there is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The named co-accused Neetu Gupta and Pramod Kumar Gupta have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 13.04.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 1787 of 2023, Neetu Gupta and another v. State of U.P. and another. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-17 of the affidavit. It is next submitted that the investigation is going on and the applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the application for grant of anticipatory bail be confined only till the submission of police report.

Having regard to the submissions made, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant and, in particular, the fact that the applicant was not named in the first information report; his name surfaced during the course of investigation; no amount was credited in the account of the applicant; the amount was deposited in the account of the alleged company; at this stage there is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the offence; and, the named co-accused Neetu Gupta and Pramod Kumar Gupta have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report.

In the event of arrest, the applicant- Deepak Sharma be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.