Allahabad High Court
Sharad Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 1 June, 2022
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6673 of 2021
Applicant :- Sharad Kumar Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Anjani Kumar Dvivedi,Pradeep Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Anjani Kumar Dvivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate.
The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant-Sharad Kumar Singh seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 175 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Nighasan, District Kheri.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this Court vide its order dated 02.07.2021 has passed an interim order to the extent that in pursuance of the FIR, in question, no coercive measure to be taken against the accused-applicant till the next date of listing with certain conditions.
It is further submitted that till date, the investigation has yet not been completed and no charge-sheet has been filed in the matter. It is further submitted that except the allegation in the FIR, no evidence has been found against the applicant as the investigation is still going on. It is further submitted that against the termination order, the writ petitions have been filed by several similarly situated persons including the present applicant, which was dismissed against which a Special Appeal was preferred which was also dismissed. Thereafter, the present applicant along with other similarly situated persons approached Hon'ble the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave to Appeal in which an interim order has been passed staying the operation of the impugned orders as well as orders passed by the learned Single Judge with a further direction to the respondents to pay current salary to the petitioners. The Diary number of the applicant before Hon'ble the Supreme Court is 11241 of 2020, the copy of the interim order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court has been annexed as Annexue no. RA-1 to the Rejoinder Affidavit.
It is further submitted that the anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. were filed by other similarly situated persons in which the anticipatory bail has been granted by this Court while disposing of the matter. Copies of such orders are at page nos. 45 to 56. It is further submitted that the applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent and the applicant undertakes that if enlarged on bail, he will never misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the investigation. 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 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.
On the other hand, learned AGA on the basis of stand taken in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and has submitted that the present applicant has obtained appointment on the basis of the forged document and the investigation is still going on for the same.
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.
After considering the rival submissions of the respective parties and perusal of the record, it is found that the services of the applicants and other similarly situated persons were terminated for the same reason that they have obtained the appointment by producing the forged document; the writ petitions preferred by the applicant and other similarly situated persons were dismissed against which the Special Appeal was preferred which was also dismissed. Against the judgment passed in the Special Appeal, the applicant and other similarly situated persons approached Hon'ble the Supreme Court and an interim order has been passed in favour of the applicant and other similarly situated persons with a direction to pay them salary; there are orders passed by this Court wherein anticipatory bail has been granted and disposed of the applications filed in favour of the similarly situated persons as it is in the case of the applicant; 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 stated 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 case of 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 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.
The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
In the event of arrest, let the accused-applicant- Sharad Kumar Singh be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime number on bail on furnishing a personal bond 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.
Order Date :- 1.6.2022
Nitesh
