Allahabad High Court
Vishunchandra Agarwal vs State Of U.P. on 7 December, 2023
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:231775
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9020 of 2023
Applicant :- Vishunchandra Agarwal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Lochan Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Uma Nath Pandey
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the informant.
2. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.198 of 2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Ekdil, District Etawah.
3. The matter relates to Committee of Management and preparation of fake lists as well as fake documents relating to fake committee of management.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant in fact no such incident has taken place as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant is an advocate since 1969 and he has also been elected president of District Bar Association, Etawah. The applicant is aged about 80 years and suffering from several old disease. The applicant has retired from the post of Acting Principal of Shri Gyanchandra Vaidh Inter College, Ekdil and after that he has nothing to do with the said school. He further submits that co-accused Brajsen Jain has submitted receipts relating to membership of Deputy Registrar Firms Society & Chit Funds, Kanpur. The applicant has no concern from the said receipt and the said receipt is also not in the handwriting of the applicant. According to prosecution story, the receipts in question were examined by a handwriting expert and the handwriting expert has opined that disputed signature has been made by one Prem Shankar Sharma. No fake receipts were made by the applicant nor were the applicants signature on the disputed receipts. Earlier the informant has also filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on the same set of facts, as narrated in the present case, which was rejected vide order dated 29.08.2016. Later on, on the same set of facts, the present FIR has been lodged. He further submits that after registration of impugned FIR, the investigating officer has submitted final report. Being aggrieved, the informant has filed protest petition and the court below in a routine manner relying upon the contents of the protest petition, has illegally summoned the applicant to face trial. He further submits that no offence whatsoever in any manner is made out against the applicant, hence, the court below while passing the summoning order has committed manifest error. He further submits the entire record of the case would itself shows that the court below without satisfying as to whether summons issued against the applicant were served upon him or not, straightaway issued non bailable warrant against the applicant. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 30 of the affidavit. He further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.
5. Lastly, it has been argued that the matter relates to Committee of Management whereby two rival groups claiming for truthiness of their existence.
6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.
7. 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.
8. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant-Vishunchandra Agarwal, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial 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 in the trial and in case the applicant is not cooperated in the trial, it shall be open for the trial court to initiate coercive steps against the applicant.
(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.
9. 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.
10. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 7.12.2023
Ajeet
