Allahabad High Court
Susheel Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 December, 2023
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:235084
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13446 of 2023
Applicant :- Susheel Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raj Pandey,Shubham Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Complaint Case No.1690 of 2015 registered under Sections 420 and 406 IPC at Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahar with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith co-accused persons, namely, Rajkumar Raghav and Nitin Shekhar Gautam, is stated to have duped the complainant of Rs.5 lakhs on the pretext that he shall be given a job in Rana Shiksha Shivir Degree College Pilakhua, District Hapur as clerk. The complainant is stated to have transferred an amount of Rs.3 lakhs to the account of Rajkumar Raghav and Rs.2 lakhs to the account of Nitin Shekhar Gautam through RTGS. The applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have neither got him appointed as clerk in the said institution nor returned the said amount.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Not a single penny has been transferred to the account of the applicant, as such his case is at a different footing to the co-accused persons. The co-accused person Raj Kumar Pandey had issued three cheques to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs to the informant and the said amount could not be realized. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the said complaint is delayed and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 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 criminal antecedents of the applicant. 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.
7. 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.
8. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant-Susheel Kumar be released forthwith in the aforesaid complaint case (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i). that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(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 in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
10. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
Order Date :- 12.12.2023
Ravi Kant
(Krishan Pahal, J.)
