Allahabad High Court
Anil Kumar @ Anil Chaudhary vs State Of U.P. on 18 April, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10971 of 2022
Applicant :- Anil Kumar @ Anil Chaudhary
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Lal Mani Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shiv Sagar Singh
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Lal Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Yogesh Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.69 of 2022, registered under Sections 420, 506 I.P.C. at Police Station Fugana, District Muzaffar Nagar with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is an employee of the company of Micros Sugar Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd. The CEO Kuldeep Singh, Directors Smt. Ekta Singh and Satyaveer Singh and two other employees Anil Kumar (applicant) and Prashant Mishra were made an accused in the said FIR of having provided machinery of low quality despite being paid full amount in advance along with 10% tax and installation money.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. Learned counsel has stated that the matter is civil in nature. The applicant has nothing to do with the day to day affairs of the company. He is simply an employee as is evident from the FIR which indicates that three persons, namely, Kuldeep Singh, Smt. Ekta Singh and Satyaveer Singh were on the board of directors of the company. The case of the applicant is at different footing to main accused persons Satyaveer Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Ekta Singh. 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. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. 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.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but they could not dispute the fact that applicant is an employee of the said company.
7. 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.
8. It is further provided that the case of the applicant stands distinguished to co-accused persons Satyaveer Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Ekta Singh.
9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Anil Kumar @ Anil Chaudhary be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i). that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii). 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;
(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
10. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
[Krishan Pahal, J.]
Order Date :- 18.4.2023
Vikas
