Allahabad High Court
Puneet Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru.Cbi on 15 September, 2022
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1483 of 2022
Applicant :- Puneet Kumar Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru.Cbi
Counsel for Applicant :- Ishan Baghel
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Heard Sri Ishan Baghel, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. 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 their arrest in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. RC0062020A0003, under Sections 120B r/w 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477A I.P.C. and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) PC Act, 1988 (as mentioned in 2018) & and substantive offences thereof, registered at Police Station C.B.I./A.C.B., Lucknow, District Lucknow.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged on 05.09.2019, in which the applicant was not named and the charge sheet was filed on 07.09.2020 but the applicant was not charged. It has been submitted that the second F.I.R. has been lodged by the same complainant before C.B.I. and the same verbatim is narrated in this F.I.R. too. In the second F.I.R. charge sheet has been filed in which the applicant is said to have involved in commission of crime. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the second F.I.R. is not sustainable in the eyes of law because the same complainant lodged the F.I.R. earlier and once the trial is going on there is no justification to proceed in the second F.I.R.
Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Tarak Dash Mukharjee And Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Others reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 731 [Criminal Appeal No. 1400 of 2022 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 503 of 2020)] to submit that multiple F.I.Rs. by the same person and for the same set of facts is not permissible. Relevant paragraph -12 is quoted below:
"12. If multiple First Information Reports by the same person against the same accused are permitted to be registered in respect of the same set of facts and allegations, it will result in the accused getting entangled in multiple criminal proceedings for the same alleged offence. Therefore, the registration of such multiple FIRs is nothing but abuse of the process of law. Moreover, the act of the registration of such successive FIRs on the same set of facts and allegations at the instance of the same informant will not stand the scrutiny of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The settled legal position on this behalf has been completely ignored by the High Court."
Counsel for the applicant has lastly submitted that the applicant wants to seek remedy before the appropriate forum by challenging the F.I.R. and the charge sheet, therefore, he may be granted the aforesaid liberty and further the applicant be granted interim anticipatory bail for a period of three weeks.
On the other hand, counsel for the C.B.I. has submitted that specific role has been assigned to the applicant while filing the charge sheet and it is found that he has also committed fraud, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be granted protection. The second aspect which is legal is arguable.
In view of the aforesaid facts and submissions and prayer made by the applicant, it appears that the applicant who is involved in aforementioned case crime is entitled to be granted interim anticipatory bail for a period of three weeks.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the bail application is allowed.
In the meanwhile and for a period of three weeks from today, let the accused-applicant Puneet Kumar Singh be released on interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned and after the concerned court verifying the sureties before issuing release order, 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 applicants 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 them 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 applicant may seek remedy before the appropriate forum by challenging the F.I.R. and the charge sheet, if he so desires. It is also made clear that the interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant will remain in force only for a period of three weeks from today.
The application stands disposed of in the above terms.
Order Date :- 15.9.2022
Arun K. Singh
