Allahabad High Court
Anil Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 7 August, 2023
Bench: Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:52089
Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1741 of 2023
Applicant :- Anil Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Purnendu Chakravarty,Shivanshu Goswami
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail for the applicant in Case Crime No. 11 of 2020, under Sections 7/13(2) PC Act, 1988, Police Station SIT, District Lucknow.
3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR registered on 30.09.2020 against the applicant, stating that the applicant had demanded and accepted bribe in relation to construction of a medical college being done by a private contractor on behalf of Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited. Prior to lodging of the FIR, a departmental inquiry was instituted and the applicant was placed under suspension but no charge sheet was issued against him. The applicant was repetitively called by the Investigating Officer of the Special Investigating Team by sending notices under Section 91/160 Cr.P.C., copies whereof have been annexed with the affidavit and it has been stated that the applicant always went to give his statements in response to the notices issued by the investigating officer. The applicant was not arrested in spite of expiry of a period of more than three years since lodging of the FIR. The applicant filed a writ petition no. 2790 of 2023 challenging the order dated 28.05.2020, whereby he was placed under suspension and the writ petition was allowed by means of a judgment and order dated 25.05.2023 taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has not been arrested and no charge sheet has been issued to him by the disciplinary authority. It was only after passing of the aforesaid order, that the Investigating Officer gave an application to the Special Judge, CBI Central, U.P., Lucknow on 17.06.2023 stating that the applicant is a named and wanted accused and he should be taken into custody.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharth v. State of U.P. & Anr. (2022) 1 SCC 676, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of issuance of non bailable warrants even where the accused has cooperated with the investigation throughout. The Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that 'personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made'.
5. The matter requires consideration.
6. Let a counter affidavit be filed within a period of two weeks.
7. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of one week.
8. List this application in the week commencing 04.09.2023.
9. Keeping in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be granted interim anticipatory bail in the matter.
10. Therefore, it is directed that in the event of arrest/appearance of applicant-Anil Kumar before the learned Trial Court till the next date of listing, he shall be released on interim anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime on his furnishing personal bail bond and two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:-
(i). That the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(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 the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
Order Date :- 7.8.2023
Pradeep/-
