Kalika Prasad Sonkar vs C.B.I. Thru Director Acb Lucknow
2022 Latest Caselaw 13064 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 12
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10216 of 2021
 
Applicant :- Kalika Prasad Sonkar
 
Opposite Party :- C.B.I. Thru Director Acb Lucknow
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Hemant Gupta,Sunil Kumar Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh
 
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

On 17.09.2021, the Court while granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant passed the following order:

"Reasons given in the supplementary affidavit for filing the present anticipatory bail directly before this Court are sufficient as per the ratio of the Full Court Judgment in the case of Ankit Bharti v. State of U.P. & Anr. - 2020 (3) ADJ 575 (F.B.).

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

The accused-applicant is involved in F.I.R. No. R.C.0062008A0019 of 2008, under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 468 and 471 IPC and 13(2) and 13(1)(c)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. CBI, ACB, District Lucknow.

Learned counsel for the applicant was retired from the post of Supply Inspector, Food and Civil Supply Department of Uttar Pradesh. He is 73 years old person. He is a well respected person of this country having deep root in the society. It is also submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedent except the case crime bearing no. 603 of 2005, under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that case bearing no. RC0062008A0019 was registered at CBI, ACB, District Lucknow on 31.10.2008 on the basis of case crime no. 603 of 2005 at P.S. Kotwali, Sadar Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheri which was registered under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act and Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 against 104 persons. In the said F.I.R. it was alleged that accused persons had caused wrongful loss to the Government Exchequer in procurement/distribution of food grains and corresponding gains to them by forgery and preparing false documents of below poverty line (B.P.L.) and food grains sponsored by the Government of India had been black-marketed. It is submitted that after the investigation, charge sheet had been submitted on 30.6.2020. It is also submitted that during the investigation, he has not been arrested by the C.B.I. or police. It is submitted that applicant is always cooperating in the investigation with the investigating agencies.

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the alleged incident is of the year 2004 and after a lapse of 3-4 years, F.I.R. had been lodged and charge sheet has been submitted in the year 2020. Accused-applicant has no previous criminal history. In case he is released on bail, he undertakes to abide by all the conditions and not to misuse the liberty of bail.

Learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. has vehemently opposed the submissions and contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. It is submitted that accused-applicant had caused loss of more than Rs. 51,00,000/- to the Public Exchequer. It is further submitted that applicant has committed fraud by way of preparing forged documents and he has dishonestly mis-appropriated the public money, therefore, he is not entitled for the anticipatory bail. In support of his argument, he has relied upon the P. Chitambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement- (2019) 9 SCC 24 and argued that the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was an extraordinary power and and the same was to be exercised sparingly. It is also held that privileges of the pre-arrest bail should be granted only of exceptional cases.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

It is admitted fact that applicant has never been arrested during the investigation and it is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the C.B.I. that he has not cooperated in the investigation. Charge sheet had already been filed. Applicant has no criminal history.

Considering the aforesaid facts, it would be appropriate to pass interim order to the extent that in pursuance of the F.I.R. in question, the accused-applicant- Kalika Prasad Sonkar shall not be arrested till the next date of listing subject to 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.

List this case on 18.10.2021.

Meanwhile, State shall file its objection."

Pursuant to the aforesaid order Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged. There is no incriminating material in the counter affidavit filed by the State.

Counsel for the applicant has submitted that co-accused Krishna Kumar Srivastava who was also a Supply Inspector, his anticipatory bail has been confirmed vide order dated 28.09.2021 along with other co-accused. It has been submitted that the role of the present applicant is identical to those co-accused whose anticipatory bail has been confirmed. It has further been submitted that during investigation the applicant was not arrested and he always cooperated with the enquiry.

On the other hand, Sri Dharmendra Tripathi, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. has opposed the bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

In view of the aforesaid, the interim anticipatory bail granted by this Court on 17.09.2021, is confirmed subject to following conditions:

(i) 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

(ii) That the accused-applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

The papers regarding bail submitted to the police officer on behalf of the accused/applicants 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.

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

The application stands disposed of.

Order Date :- 15.9.2022/Arun K. Singh