Puneet Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Cbi
2023 Latest Caselaw 20029 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:50747
 
Court No. - 16
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1994 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Puneet Kumar Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Cbi
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ishan Baghel,Avinash Singh Vishen
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

1. On 28.11.2022, after hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. this Court had passed the following interim order -

"Heard Sri Ishan Baghel, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Amrendra Singh Advocate holding brief of Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. and perused record.

This is second 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 amended 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 earlier, the applicant had approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No.-1483 of 2022: Puneet Kumar Singh. Vs. State of U.P. through CBI.). In the said application, the applicant was granted bail for a period of three weeks, vide order dated 15.9.2022. In the meantime, the applicant had also challenged the entire proceedings by filing Application U/S 482 No.7209 of 2022: Puneet Kumar Singh. Vs. State of U.P. through CBI) in which counter affidavit has been invited which is pending.

Learned counsel for the applicant, however, has submitted that in the meantime, two co-accused namely, Saurabh Kumar @ Saurabh Srivastava and Avinash Kumar who are Bank officials had filed Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No.-1708 of 2022: Saurabh Kumar alias Saurabh Srivastava. Vs.Union of India through Superintendent of CBI/ACB Lko.; and Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No.-1709 of 2022: Avinash Kumar. Vs. Union of India through Superintendent of CBI/ACP Lko., have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 17.10.2022 respectively. He has submitted that against both aforesaid two Bank officials allegation of defrauding amount has been made whereas, the applicant is employee of the Agent and his case is standing on better footing.

While granting anticipatory bail for a period of three weeks to the present applicant, in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No.-1483 of 2022: Puneet Kumar Singh. Vs. State of U.P. through CBI.) by order dated 15.9.2022, a detail order was passed. The relevant portion of the said order is quoted below:-

"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."

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I am of the considered opinion that the matter requires consideration.

Counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for opposite party CBI is taken on record.

Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within ten days.

List thereafter.

Till the next date of listing, accused-applicant, namely, Puneet Kumar Singh in the event of his arrest in connection with aforesaid case crime, shall forthwith be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting officer/Investigating Officer/ S.H.O. concerned on the 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."

2. Although a counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed, nothing has come to light which may persuade this Court to take a view, different from the view taken while passing the aforesaid order, nor the learned A.G.A. has pointed out violation of any of the conditions of interim anticipatory bail committed by the applicant.

3. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the interim order dated 28.11.2022 is hereby made absolute and the application is allowed in terms of the aforesaid order.

Order Date :- 1.8.2023

Pradeep/-