Rajesh Kumar Saini vs State Of U.P Thru. Prin.Secy./ ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 14110 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 13
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1152 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Saini
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin.Secy./ Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjai Srivastava,Dinesh Kumar Pushpakar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Neera Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

Heard.

C.M. Application No. IA of 2022 has been moved for correction in the memo of the application.

C.M. Application for correction is hereby allowed.

Let the necessary correction be made during the course of the day.

.....

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1152 of 2022

Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Saini

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin.Secy./ Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjai Srivastava,Dinesh Kumar Pushpakar

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Neera Yadav

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

Heard Ms. Nalini Prakash Jain, learned counsel for the applicant, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondents and Sri Vinay Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Neera Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2.

This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the present applicant (Kamlesh Kumar Dixit) apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.375 of 2019, under Sections 409, 419 & 420 I.P.C. and Section 136 of Electricity Act, 2003, Police Station-Mohammadi, District-Kheri.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.).

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards the impugned F.I.R. wherein ten accused persons have been named including the present applicant. The present applicant is serving on the post of Junior Engineer, Workshop Division, Sitapur.

Ms. Jain has submitted that after lodging of the F.I.R. in the month of July, 2019, the present applicant is co-operating with the investigation, therefore, he has not been arrested. She has also submitted that one co-accused person, namely, Shramik Sushil Kumar has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 01.07.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application (U/S 438 Cr.P.C.) No.1022 of 2022. She has submitted that the present applicant being a government employee shall co-operate with the process of law and there is no question of his absconding, therefore, the liberty of the present applicant may be protected.

On being confronted Ms. Jain as to whether the charge-sheet has been filed or not, she has submitted that she is not aware of this fact as to whether the charge-sheet has been filed or not but the present applicant is co-operating with the investigation since lodging of the F.I.R.

However, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted on the basis of instructions that no charge-sheet has been filed till date but the presence of the applicant is required for the purposes of investigation.

On being confronted learned Additional Government Advocate as to whether the Investigating Authority has tried to arrest the present applicant since July, 2019 when the F.I.R. was lodged, he has submitted that there is no instructions that any effort has been made to arrest the present applicant as he is a government servant but in any case he should give his undertaking that he shall properly co-operate with the investigation.

Be that as it may, since more than three years period have passed after lodging the F.I.R. and the present applicant has not been arrested, therefore, it may safely be presumed that he must be co-operated with the investigation.

Since learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that the presence of the applicant is required for the purposes of investigation, therefore, I hereby direct the applicant to appear before the Investigating Officer on 3.10.2022 at 11:00 a.m. sharp. Further, if the present applicant does not appear before the Investigating Officer on 3.10.2022 any coercive action may be taken against him. Since the present applicant is co-operating with the investigation since lodging of the F.I.R. and still the investigation is going on and the applicant is giving his undertaking that he shall co-operate with the investigation, therefore, I find appropriate that till conclusion of investigation or till filing of the police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. the liberty of the present applicant may be protected in the light of the judgment of Apex Court rendered in re:Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98. Besides, one co-accused, namely, Shramik Sushil Kumar has been granted bail by this Court, even on the basis of principles of parity the present applicant may be granted such liberty.

Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is disposed of.

Therefore, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant, Rajesh Kumar Saini, shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number, till conclusion of trial on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority/ court concerned with the following conditions:-

1. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation made 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 his 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 prior permission of the court;

4. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

5. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

6. that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

7. 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.

.

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

Order Date :- 30.9.2022

Om