Allahabad High Court
Vasdev Gupta vs State Of U.P. on 6 February, 2023
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5212 of 2020
Applicant :- Vasdev Gupta
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vishal Tandon
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Vishal Tandon, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.278 of 2020, under Sections 3/7 of E.C. Act, Police Station-Tarya Sujan, District-Kushinagar, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.
Earlier, on 28.09.2020, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, while granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant, has passed following order :-
"Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for applicant in Court toady is taken on record.
Heard Mr. Vishal Tandon, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the material on record.
This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Vasdev Gupta in connection with Case Crime No.278 of 2020, under Section 3/7 E.C. Act, Police Station- Tarya Sujan, District- Kushinagar.
It transpires from record that an F.I.R. dated 29.07.2020 was lodged against the applicant by informant- Vijay Kumar Rai (Supply Inspector), which was registered as Case Crime No.278 of 2020, under Section 3/7 E.C. Act, Police Station- Tarya Sujan, District- Kushinagar. Perusal of the record shows that various allegations have been levelled against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that applicant is a fair price shop dealer. Subsequent to the F.I.R. dated 29.07.2020, the fair price shop of the applicant was suspended. The suspension order was challenged before this Court and this Court passed an interim order dated 27.08.2020, whereby the suspension order was kept in abeyance. As a consequence of the interim order passed by this Court, the fair price shop has been restored. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged that prima facie this Court found that allegations made against the applicant are not true.
Learned counsel for applicant further contends that the F.I.R. was lodged on 29.07.2020. However, up to this stage no such material has been collected by the police on the basis of which the complicity of the applicant can be said to be established in above-mentioned case crime number. Investigation is still going on but the custodial arrest of the applicant is not at all necessary. Applicant undertakes to co-operate with the investigation. It is thus submitted that the benefit of anticipatory bail be extended in favour of the present applicant.
Matter requires consideration.
Notices on behalf of opposite party no.1, 2 and 3 have been accepted by learned A.G.A.
Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Applicant will have one week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.
List after the expiry of the aforesaid period.
Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in above-mentioned case crime number."
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He further submits that the applicant has always co-operated in the investigation and has not misused the liberty of aforesaid interim anticipatory bail, which was granted to them on 28.09.2020 by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court. He further submits that FIR has been lodged due to ulterior motive in order to exert pressure upon the applicants. After lodging of the FIR, the applicant have challenged the order suspending fair price shop license, which has been stayed by this Court. He further submits that the offence is bailable offence. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegation made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant has also been touched upon length. 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.
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.
On due consideration to the argument advanced by learned A.G.A., perused the entire records and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case in view of the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgement of the Apex Court.
In view of above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.
Let the applicant-Vasdev Gupta involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail till the 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:-
1.The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.
3. The applicant shall not leave India during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
4. The applicant shall surrender their passports, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. Their passports will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.
5. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the trial Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1.
6. 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;
7. 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 him/her/them in accordance with law.
It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 6.2.2023
Jitendra/-
