Allahabad High Court
Rajan Ravinder Dutta And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 April, 2023
Bench: Nalin Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 97 of 2023
Applicant :- Rajan Ravinder Dutta And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Laxman Pathak,Gautam Baghel
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants -Rajan Ravinder Dutta and Ravi Chhatriya in Complaint Case No.825 of 2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 406, 506 IPC, Police Station - Nawabad, District ? Jhansi.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have no concern with the present matter. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. No credible evidence has been collected against the applicants so far. Complaint has been lodged against the applicants with ulterior motive only to harass the applicants. Applicants' case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. If the applicants are enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the liberty and will cooperate with the investigation / trial. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest by the police any time.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer.
It has been alleged against the accused applicant by the informant that the informant is an executive secretary of the general assembly of United Church Northern India, which is a registered Institution and the accused applicant, having no concern with the aforesaid Institution, as imposter, misusing the letter pad of the aforesaid Institution are trying to sell the property of the Institution showing them as moderator and vice moderator of the said Institution and thereby they are causing monetary loss to the Institution concerned. It also reveals from the perusal of the record that an application under section 156 (3)Cr.P.C. was moved before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi and the said application was treated as complaint and on the basis of statement of complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and other evidence on record, the accused applicants were summoned under the aforesaid Sections to face the trial. It also reveals that the informant himself was removed by the Registrar from the post of executive secretary of the said Institution, against which, a CWP No.6210 of 2016 was filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh by the informant, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail the alternative remedy by approaching the competent authority vide order dated 10.5.2017. It also reveals from the perusal of the supplementary affidavit, which is on record, that list of Managing Committee has been prepared which contains the name of the present accused applicants as Priest in the said Institution. It further reveals that earlier, an application under section 482 Cr.C.P. No. - 12951 of 2022 was preferred by the applicant no.2 Ravi Chhatriya to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case no.825 of 2017 and also to stay the execution of non-bailable warrant issued against applicant no.2 by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi, however, vide order dated 30.5.2022, the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was disposed of with the direction to the applicant no.2 to apply for bail before the trial court and it was also directed that if the applicant applies for bail within 20 days, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in view of the directions given for the offences provided in Category B of the head "Categories / Types of Offences" of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825. Since the remedy has already been availed by applicant no.2, I do not find any justification to pass any order in respect of applicant no.2 for granting him anticipatory bail and anticipatory bail application so far as the applicant no.2 is concerned, is disposed of in the light of the order passed by the Court in Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. - 12951 of 2022 aforesaid.
So far as the applicant no.1 is concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it will be proper to put applicant no.1 in the same position where applicant no.2 stands and declining to grant any anticipatory bail to applicant no.1 also at this stage, he is also directed to avail the protection given in Satendra Kumar Antil (supra) in view of the order dated 30.5.2022 passed in Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. - 12951 of 2022. Anticipatory bail application in respect of applicant no.1 is also disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 5.4.2023 / ss
