Allahabad High Court
Sunil Kumar Srivastava vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 August, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:159221
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6466 of 2023
Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Swapnesh Singh,Brijesh Kumar Verma,Satyam Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
2. The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No. 220 of 2019, under Sections 409, 420, 120-B IPC, P.S. Kaymganj, District Farrukhabad directly before this High Court without any rejection order from the Sessions Court.
3. In the affidavit filed in support of anticipatory bail application, it has been averred that the anticipatory bail application is being filed directly before this Court on account of the fact that the applicant is presently posted as Secretary/Chief Executive Officer, District Co-opreative Bank Limited, Allahabad which falls outside the territorial jurisdiction of the place where the F.I.R. in question has been registered and his case falls within the category laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ankit Bharti Vs State of UP and another, 2020 (3) ADJ 575 (FB).In this matter, the FIR has been lodged at District Ghaziabad.
4. Learned A.G.A. raised preliminary objection that the applicant has approached this Court directly without approaching the Session Judge, which is not in consonance of Judgement rendered in the case of Ankit Bharti Vs State of UP and another, 2020 (3) ADJ 575 (FB). It has been further submitted that no extraordinary circumstances or exceptional circumstances have been mentioned by the applicant in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application as to why this application should be entertained directly by this Court. It is further submitted that in Ankit Bharti case (supra) it has been settled that 'where an accused not residing within the jurisdiction of the concerned Sessions Court faces a threat of arrest', it will be justified in entertaining a Petition / Application directly in the High Court and same shall be treated as a special circumstance.
5. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ankit Bharti and others (supra), has further clearly held that special circumstances must necessarily exist and be established, and the application must rest on a strong foundation to invoke concurrent jurisdiction of this Court directly; without rejection by the court below.
6. However, the record further discloses that earlier the applicant has been granted anticipatory bail under Sections 419, 420,467,468,471 IPC vide order dated 29.01.2021 passed in Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1787 of 2021 by directly approaching this Court during covid period. Thereafter, charge sheet has been filed into the matter and some more sections 409,204,120-B IPC are added and hence the applicant approached this court directly in the added sections taking plea of parity with co accused Santosh Singh Yadav, who has also approached this court directly in the aforesaid added sections and a co-ordinate bench of this Court granted anticipatory bail into the added sections vide order dated 11.5.2023 passed in Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application No. 46741 of 2023.
8. Moreover, the allegation against the applicant is that he was member of the Selection Committee which selected the co accused Shyam Singh for the post of Cadre Secretary. The Co accused is said to have allegedly committed several financial irregularities.
9. It is submitted that in this case applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the police with ulterior motive. It is further submitted that there is no credible evidence to connect the applicant with the crime in question. The applicant is under apprehension of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the trial.
10. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
11. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant Sunil Kumar Srivastava, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
(1) 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; and
(2) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(3) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(4) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.
(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
(6) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.
12. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
13. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 8.8.2023
RavindraKSingh
