Allahabad High Court
Rajeev Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. on 21 August, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:167746
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8172 of 2023
Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sai Girdhar,Anjul Dwivedi,Vandana Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard Sri Sai Girdhar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.288 of 2021, under Sections 409, 419, 420 I.P.C., P.S.- Chetganj, District- Varanasi.
3. As per prosecution story, there are five named and one unnamed persons including the applicant in the FIR. As per allegation, the applicant, who happens to be the Sales Manager of the company Nilgiri Infracity Private Ltd., is stated to have usurped an amount of Rs.4,72,500/- of the informant and neither provided a plot nor returned the said money.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant was working as a Sales Manager of Nilgiri Infracity Private Limited Company, the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. The applicant is not on the board of the directors of the company. The person on the board of directors are Vikash Singh (Managing Director), Ritu Singh (Director) and Pradeep Singh (Manager) have been granted interim bail by the Apex Court passed in S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 8998 of 2022 vide order dated 21.10.2022. He submitted that 11 FIR of the same nature, have been lodged against the applicant and out which in 9 cases, the applicant has been granted anticipatory bail, copies of the same is produced by learned counsel for the applicant are kept on record. 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. There are no previous criminal antecedents of the applicant except the eleven cases instituted regarding the same company and similar type of transactions. 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.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
6. 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.
7. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Rajeev Kumar Singh, involved in the aforesaid case 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:-
(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(v) 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.
(vi) 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.
(vii) 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.
8. 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.
9. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands allowed.
Order Date :- 21.8.2023
Krishna*
