Allahabad High Court
Sadhu Singh vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 9 February, 2023
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13262 of 2021
Applicant :- Sadhu Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Ors.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Pratap Singh,Akshay Kumar Singh,Amrendra Kumar,Neeraj Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.796 of 2020 under sections 420, 409 I.P.C., P.S. Gomti Nagar, district Lucknow East (Commissionarate Lucknow).
Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent as well as perused the record.
The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.11.2021 has granted interim protection to the applicant while granting interim protection to the applicant, the court has noted the gist of the controversy in the case, which is extracted below:-
"The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.796 of 2020 under sections 420, 409 I.P.C., P.S. Gomti Nagar, district Lucknow East (Commissionarate Lucknow).
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.
As per prosecution case, the informant through multiple transactions made an entrustment of an amount through multiple cheques worth Rs.1,04,90,344/- on different dates to Saurabh Rausha, Managing Director of Rausha Capital Investment Private Limited who is the son of the present applicant.
It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is the father of the co-accused. He is not concerned with the transaction mentioned in the first information report. He is not named in the first information report. It is next submitted that M/s Rausha Capital Investment Private Limited has an account number and that account number is operated only by Sorab Rosha, co-accused who is the sole signatory of the account. A certificate of ICICI Bank is on record (Annexure-6). The applicant has not received a single penny. Only in order to harass the applicant and exert pressure, the applicant has also been made an accused in this case.
Considering the above aspects of the matter and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Issue notice to respondents.
Notice to respondent No.1 shall be issued in terms of provisions of Section 438(1A) CrPC.
Let counter affidavit(s) be filed within fifteen days.
List on 3.12.2021.
Without expressing any opinion on ultimate merit of the case, this Court directs that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.
The applicant is directed to cooperate with the investigation and he shall attend the investigation as and when required by the investigating officer. In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection."
Learned counsel for applicant submits that co-accused Saurabh Rausha is the Managing Director of Rausha Capital Investment Pvt. Ltd. The account of the company is solely operated by co-accused Mr. Saurabh Rausha who is the sole signatory of the account; the certificate of ICICI Bank is on record. He submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated and he has not received any amount. He further submits that the investigation is going on and applicant undertakes to cooperate in the investigation. Applicant shall not misuse the liberty granted by this Court.
Learned A.G.A.has opposed the bail prayer however, does not dispute the fact that applicant has not applicant has no criminal antecedents.
On due consideration to the submissions advanced; perusal of the record; so also considering the fact that co-accused Mr. Saurabh Rausha is the sole operator of the account of the company; applicant has no criminal antecedents; applicant undertakes that he shall not misuse the liberty granted by this Court and further undertakes to cooperate in the investigation; it would be expedient that the applicant be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
Therefore, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. In the event of arrest, let the applicant-Sadhu Singh be released forthwith in case crime No.796 of 2020 under sections 420, 409 I.P.C., P.S. Gomti Nagar, district Lucknow East (Commissionarate Lucknow), on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned on the following conditions:-
(i) That the accused-applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation.
(ii) That the accused-applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat and 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) That the accused-applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
This order shall remain operative till filing of police report.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions or in case it is otherwise found for any other reason the bail is required to be canceled, it shall be open for the State or the appropriate authority to move application for cancellation of bail/vacation of this order in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 9.2.2023
Saurabh Yadav/-
