Allahabad High Court
Vinod Bihari Lal vs State Of U.P. on 1 July, 2021
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8004 of 2021
Applicant :- Vinod Bihari Lal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kumar Vikrant,Rajiv Lochan Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for applicant-Vinod Bihari Lal and Sri Janardan Prakash, learned AGA for the State.
2. This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. is filed on behalf of the applicant-Vinod Bihari Lal being aggrieved of the order dated 23.02.2021, passed by learned C.J.M., Allahabad in Case No. 6342 of 2015, Case Crime No. 845 of 2014 registered at Police Station-Civil Lines, District-Allahabad under Sections 467, 468, 471, 419, 420, 406 IPC.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that earlier a petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing no. 12558 of 2015, in which a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.05.2015 had directed that order of the learned C.J.M. dated 07.04.2015, issuing non-bailable warrant against the applicant in Case Crime No. 845 of 2014 shall remain stayed till next date of listing. Learned counsel for applicant admits that this stay order was continued from time to time and later on in the year 2018, when matter was listed on 11.01.2018, then stay was not extended. Applicant's contention is that stay was extended till the next date of listing on 07.07.2015, 01.04.2016, 17.02.2017, 20.03.2017, 31.05.2017, 26.10.2017 and 15.11.2017, but could not be extended, as matter was not taken up on 11.01.2018. It is submitted that on 11.01.2018, counsel for the applicant had personally marked the matter for extension of stay in the cause list yet it was not extended and therefore, bailable warrants have been issued by the learned C.J.M. vide impugned order dated 23.02.2021.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that co-accused had also filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in which protection was granted vide order dated 19.05.2015. Another co-accused Alwan Masih and co-accused Arun Paul had filed another petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where interim protection was granted vide order dated 06.02.2017. Another co-accused Daniel Subhan has been already granted bail by the Apex Court vide order dated 14.06.2018 and similarly, another co-accused Ramakant Dubey has been granted bail by this High Court vide order dated 20.09.2018. It is further submitted that vide order dated 05.12.2018 and 19.12.2018, entire proceedings of the present case against two co-accused persons namely, Sanjeet Lall and Rakesh Kumar Chattree have been quashed. Placing reliance on such facts, it is submitted that benefit of anticipatory bail be extended in favour of the applicant in regard to Case Crime No. 845 of 2014.
5. Learned AGA, in his turn, submits that applicant is prohibited from seeking parallel proceedings. It is submitted that on the one hand, he filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of the chargesheet etc., in which a Coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to stay the non-bailable warrant, issued against the applicant and on the other hand, applicant is seeking remedy of anticipatory bail.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that warrants have been issued against the applicants for his failure to appear before the court below despite interim protection, which was granted in his favour in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has not been extended. Arguments put-forth by the learned counsel for applicant is that though, he had marked for extension of stay, but that was not noted and therefore, this anomaly has taken place, but the fact of the matter is that stay was not extended in the year 2018 and to put more precisely on 11.01.2018. Copies of the orders passed by the High are available on official website. Thus, applicant and his counsel were aware of the fact that interim order granted on 19.05.2015 has not been extended. Right course, which was open to them was to have moved an appropriate application in the pending matter under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying for extension of interim protection, but in place of claiming any such correction/extension, applicant has filed this application seeking anticipatory bail.
7. As far as case of Daniel Subhan is concerned, Supreme Court has noted that since he was in custody for more than one year, he was released on bail. Similarly, Ramakant Dubey was given benefit of bail vide order dated 20.09.2018 after recording a fact that he was in custody since 24.07.2018, therefore, order passed by the Supreme Court in case of Daniel Subhan and Coordinate Bench of this High Court in case Ramakant Dubey are the orders passed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and not under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
8. As far as case of Sanjeet Lall or Rakesh Kumar Chattree is concerned, proceedings were quashed, taking note of the fact that parties had entered into a compromise and opposite party had given an affidavit before the trial court that he does not wants to proceed against the applicant. Therefore, no parity can be sought vis-a-vis, case of Sanjeet Lall and Rakesh Kumar Chattree.
9. Applicant has not approached this court with clean hands. He never appeared before the learned Court of C.J.M., where his case is pending despite the fact that interim protection stood vacated. Even in the light of the law laid down in case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt Ltd v. Central Bureau of Investigation; AIR 2018 SC 2039, such interim protection was to come to an end, as trial was being hampered and simply a case under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was adjourned on one or the other pretext.
10. It is settled principle of law that power to be exercised under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised, looking to the nature and gravity of the accusation, antecedents of the applicant, possibility of the applicant to flee from justice and where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him arrested. The guiding principle is that conduct of the persons seeking anticipatory bail should inspire confidence and the court considering such an application should be of prima facie opinion that an attempt has been made to involve the applicant in a false case to disgrace or malign.
11. Compromise entered into by the co-accused on whose judgment reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for applicant are once where compromise is effected between the parties. Thereby, prima facie, guilt of the accused persons in commission of the offence, stands vindicated. The allegations against the applicant and co-accused are that without authority and in a fraudulent manner, accounts of Lucknow Diocesan Trust Association were operated by the applicant and the other co-accused and such operation of accounts on the basis of forged signatures and then withdrawal of huge amounts of Rs. 1.5 crores is an allegation of serious nature.
12. It is settled principle of law that a person, who is not approaching the court with clean hands and who failed to explain the reasons for not appearing before the court below despite knowing the fact that interim protection was not extended on 11.01.2018, this court is of the opinion that no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out for a person charged with such serious allegations and has failed to approach this court with clean hands. Supreme Court in case of Ms. Neeharika Infrastructure Private Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others; AIR 2021 SC 1918 has held that interim orders passed by High Court without assigning any reason, no coercive measures shall be adopted against accused in respect of FIR, is unsustainable and in view of this judgment of Supreme Court also, applicant is not entitled to any protection, therefore, anticipatory bail application fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.7.2021
Vikram/-A
