The Allahabad High Court, while dismissing an application of anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 408, 409 I.P.C., observed that a counsel can only argue a fact pleaded specifically in the anticipatory bail application and is not authorized to make a statement of fact that has not been specifically pleaded and one cannot lose sight of the fact that unwarranted protection to an accused has adverse effect on the peace and tranquillity of society at large and effects maintenance of law and order in the society.
Brief Facts:
The applicant, who was working as a Chief Cashier at a bank, in collision with Yogendra Singh, co-accused (who worked as a Security Guard in the bank), committed the offence of criminal breach of trust. The bank’s Assistant Treasurer deposited around Rs. 39 Lakhs in cash with the bank. While depositing the said amount, he was accompanied by a co-accused. After that, though the Assistant Treasurer returned to his office, Yogendra Singh remained present there, and after some time, he also returned without receiving a receipt for the cash deposit. After that, the other day, a person was sent to the bank to collect the receipt of the cash deposit; however, regarding the receipt of Rs. 39 lakhs, a receipt of Rs. 11,34,489 was only given. An FIR was then lodged against the applicant and the said Security Guard, alleging that though the applicant had received Rs. 39 Lakhs, Singh took away from him Rs. 28 Lakhs and after that, a new receipt of Rs. 11,34,489/—was submitted, and the previous receipt was cancelled and given back. The present application was filed by the applicant for granting anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 408, 409 I.P.C.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the aforesaid incident has been recorded in the C.C.T.V. footage of the bank, and the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.
Observations of the Court:
The court stated that a counsel could only argue a fact which has been pleaded specifically in the anticipatory bail application and he is not authorised to make a statement of fact which has not been specifically pleaded; accordingly, the submission of learned counsel for the applicant in respect of CCTV footage being recorded cannot be accepted.
Further, the court stated that it owes duty that justice is done to all the parties and the citizens in terms of the constitutional mandate are required to abide by the law and where from the material and allegation against an accused, offence is made out, the accused is required to show exceptional circumstances warranting the protection of liberty. It was observed by the court that no circumstances had been shown by the applicant to demonstrate that the personal liberty of the accused in the facts and circumstances of the case is required to be protected, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the grant of anticipatory bail would lead to miscarriage of justice.
It was further observed by the court that it should be slow to grant anticipatory bail to an accused who does not abide by the law and commits an offence, and in the present case, it is not shown by the applicant that the prosecution or complainant has falsely implicated the applicant and one cannot lose sight of the fact that unwarranted protection to an accused has adverse effect on the peace and tranquillity of society at large and effects maintenance of law and order in the society.
Further, the court stated that the nature and gravity of the offence and the role played by the applicant disentitle the applicant to grant anticipatory bail, and the applicant has failed to show that there is harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the applicant and it is also not shown that there is over the implication of the applicant or the applicant has been falsely implicated, or there is frivolity in prosecution, and a person who has committed an offence is not entitled to grant of discretionary jurisdiction of anticipatory bail unless it is shown that the accused is falsely implicated or is entitled to the protection of liberty and further a person who has violated the law and has not shown exceptional circumstances is not entitled to the benefit of extraordinary jurisdiction.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the application.
Case Title: Manish Kumar vs State of U.P.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Vikram D. Chauhan
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 6730 of 2024
Advocate for the Applicant: Hanuman Prasad Kushwaha
Advocate for the Respondent: G.A.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
