Allahabad High Court
Kamal Ashraf vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 25 April, 2022
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9161 of 2021
Applicant :- Kamal Ashraf
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Alishah Faruqi,Ishraq Farooqui,Raghvendra P. Singh,Satyendra Prakash Singh,Vineet Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Satyendra Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.3 of 2021, registered under Section 406 and 420 IPC r/w 7 & 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station- Mahanagar, District Lucknow with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
As per prosecution story, the applicant is said to have duped the first informant to the tune of Rs.2,10,000/- on the pretext that he shall be provided a Government job.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is Conductor in the department and he is not in a capacity to get anybody appointed on a Government job. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant and the applicant has been terminated from his services owing to the inquiry against him. The person who has levelled the charges against the applicant i.e. Pankaj Kumar Pandey has himself stated that nothing remains between the two. There was a matter pertaining to some money due towards him which has been settled. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that two cheques given by the applicant to the victim Pankaj Kumar Pandey had bounced owing to lack of funds as he was busy in the treatment of his ailing wife who was suffering from cancer and he could not continue on job owing to it and his own ailment from December, 2019 to June, 2020. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that he has co-operated during the investigation and he shall keep on co-operating in future during the course of trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.
Per contra, Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the charge-sheet has been filed against him. However, he could not dispute the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicant and the matter has been settled between the applicant and the victim Pankaj Kumar Pandey.
On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 656". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Kamal Ashraf be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
2. that 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
3. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
4. that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant;
5. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
6. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
7. that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial or deciding the regular bail application.
Order Date :- 25.4.2022
Ravi Kant
