Allahabad High Court
Rohit Kumar Yadav @ Rohit Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 22 November, 2022
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11548 of 2022
Applicant :- Rohit Kumar Yadav @ Rohit Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Satyanand Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Satyanand Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, 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.565 of 2020, registered under Sections 420 and 406 IPC at Police Station- Phase III, District Gautam Budh Nagar with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
As per prosecution story, the applicant, who happens to be the Accounts Head of the company M/s West Land Private Ltd., in collusion with other stake holder of the company is stated to have usurped an amount of Rs.26 lacs of the informant and neither provided the money nor the goods to the informant.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant was appointed as Accounts Officer with the company and has been wrongly referred to as Accounts Head in the FIR and he is simply an employee has nothing to do with the day today affairs of the company. The main accused, who is the Managing Director of the company, has already been enlarged on bail in all the eight cases lodged with regard to the same subject matter and the same kind of controversy by the Apex Court on 16.08.2021. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant has also been enlarged on anticipatory bail in four of the said eight cases instituted against him. The applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is not a previous convict. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
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 "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". 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- Rohit Kumar Yadav @Rohit Yadav 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 Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/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 case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
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 :- 22.11.2022
Ravi Kant
