Allahabad High Court
Saurav Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 5 October, 2021
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 32
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11160 of 2021
Applicant :- Saurav Kumar Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. & Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ishan Baghel,Padeep Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. and perused record.
The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail as the accused-applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Case Crime No. 0396 of 2021, under Sections 419,420 and 406 I.P.C.,1860, Police Station-Vibhuti Khand, District-Lucknow.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant and co-accused, Saurabh Kumar Singh and Nirmala Devi that they have submitted forged resignation letters of the informant in three companies,whereas the informant has not given any resignation letter.
It is further submitted that the resignation letter was given by the informant on 03-12-2020 and the same has been approved in its Board Meeting dated 15-03-2021.
It is further submitted that after acceptance of the resignation letter, the same has been forwarded to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs on 22-03-2021 for the purposes of maintaining the record by e-mail and on the very same day, the said letter was forwarded to the informant and his sister, Jyoti Singh, who was earlier Director through e-mail.
It is further submitted that the account of the informant was also settled by refunding the money in his account on 14th July, 2021. In support of the said submission, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this court to the page no. 1267 of the paper book i.e. messages between the applicant and the sister of the informant i.e. Jyoti Singh, wherein it has been mentioned that only this much amount is to be paid to Prakash Singh, the informant.
It is further submitted that except the F.I.R., no other material has been collected against the applicant during the investigation.
It is further submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case just to tarnish the image of applicant in the society. It is further submitted that the applicant is apprehending his arrest in near future.
It is further submitted that the applicant has previous criminal history of one case, but, the applicant has never received any notice in the said case and in this matter, final report has been submitted. .
It has further been submitted that the nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused has not properly comprehended. It is further contended that the applicant has not previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence and there is no possibility of applicant to flee from the judicial proceedings.
It is further submitted that the applicant is permanent resident of Lucknow.
It is further submitted that the applicant all the offences are triable by the Magistrate.
It is further submitted that the police is adamant to arrest the applicant and in support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this court to the page no. 134 of the paper book i.e. the order passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 20559 (M/B) of 2021, Saurav Kumar Singh & Ors Versus State of U.P. & Ors. and against the conduct of the Investigating Officer, this court vide its order dated 14-09-2021 has asked for the report from the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow by filing his personal affidvit .
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. on the basis of instructions received and Sri Bipin Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submited that the informant has not tendered any resignation letter and the forgery was committed by the applicant.
It is further submitted by the learned A.G.A. while opposing the anticipatory bail application that during the investigation, in one Parcha of case diary, it has come out that the signatures are not of Prakash, the informant on the resignation letter and it does not tally with the signatures on the Aadhar Card.
In reply thereto, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is the report of the Investigating Officer whereas the FSL report is still awaited, this fact has not been disputed by the learned A.G.A. that the FSL report is still awaited.
As per the judgment in the case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat reported in MANU/SC/0949/2015, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended, the previous criminal antecedents of the applicant whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction, the possibility of applicant to flee and where the accusation has been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him.
In the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 1349, the Apex Court has referred to the third report of National Police Commission wherein it is mentioned that arrests by the police in India is one of the chief source of corruption in the police. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental rights and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative. According to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the peculiar case the arrest of an accused should be made.
After considering the rival submissions of the respective parties and looking into the circumstances as well as annexures which have been annexed with the application for anticipatory bail, it is found that there is a case registered against the applicant and it cannot be definitely said when the police may apprehend the applicant. After the lodging of FIR the arrest can be made by the police at will. There is no definite period fixed for the police to arrest an accused against whom an FIR has been lodged. It is also found that nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused has not been properly comprehended; the applicant has not previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by the Court; as undertaken by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no possibility to flee from the judicial proceedings and in the light of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in cases of Joginder Kumar (supra) and Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth (Supra), this Court finds it a fit case to issue an interim order of anticipatory bail as per Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, the applicant as an interim measure may be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
In the event of arrest, let the accused-applicant, Saurav Kumar Singh be released forthwith in the aforesaid Case Crime Number on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting officer/Investigating Officer/ S.H.O. concerned on the following conditions:-
(i) That the accused-applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation;
(ii). That the accused-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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; and
(iii). That the accused-applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
The papers regarding bail submitted to the police officer on behalf of the accused/applicant shall form part of the case diary and would be submitted to the court concerned along with same at the time of submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
In case there is breach of any of the above conditions or in case it is otherwise found for any other reason the bail is required to be cancelled, it shall be open for the State or the appropriate authority to move application for cancellation of bail in accordance with law.
Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted two weeks time to file counter affidavit in the matter.
List this case in the week commencing 25.10.2021.
Order Date :- 5.10.2021
AKS
