Allahabad High Court
Rajneesh Pandey vs State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 12 January, 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. - 235 of 2022
Applicant :- Rajneesh Pandey
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- O.P. Tiwari,Rajendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
Vide order dated 17.02.2022, the applicant was granted interim protection by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Gist of the issue involved in the present matter is given in the said order, which is extracted below:
"Heard Sri O.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vinay Kumar Shahi, learned AGA.
The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.0346 of 2021, under Section 409 IPC, Police Station Achalganj, District Unnao.
Sri Tiwari has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.
He has further submitted that admittedly, the incident is of November 2020 whereas the FIR has been lodged in the month of November, 2021 and there is no explanation of such inordinate delay. Besides, the present applicant has preferred a legal notice to the Branch Manager and Chief Manager of C.M.S. Company (Annexure No.4) wherein he has categorically requested that independent and appropriate enquiry may be conducted after verifying the CCTV footage so that it could be ascertained as to who has committed the offence in question. Despite the service of aforesaid legal notice dated 12.11.2020, no proper enquiry has been conducted. Then, the applicant has filed a complaint before the Labour Court, Unnao (Annexure No.5) against the authorities of C.M.S. Company and other persons by name on 15.12.2020. He has further submitted that despite verifying the culpability of the present applicant, the Branch Manager of the Company has lodged FIR on 13.11.2021 against the present applicant without indicating the fact as to what is the corroborative material against him and as to how the present applicant may be implicated in the present case. It has not been informed to the investigating agency as to whether CCTV footage has been verified pursuant to the legal notice dated 12.11.2020 (Annexure No.4) of the present applicant.
Per contra, learned AGA has submitted, on the basis of instructions, that out of total embezzled amount, some amount has been paid by the present applicant, however, on that, the present applicant has denied by saying that since he had not embezzled any amount as alleged, therefore, he has not paid any amount as alleged by the State.
Considering the aforesaid submissions, if there is no explanation of delay of one year and despite the specific request of the present applicant to verify the relevant information from CCTV footage and the present applicant has not paid any part amount, submission of the present applicant for the purposes of anticipatory bail may liable to be considered subject to the same being verified by the learned AGA.
List/ put up on 28.02.2022 as fresh, if possible within top ten cases, to enable the learned AGA to seek written instructions on the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant.
Till the next date of listing, as an interim measure, it is directed that in case applicant-Rajneesh Pandey is arrested, he shall be released forthwith on interim anticipatory bail after obtaining personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned/concerned court with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall extend his full cooperation in the investigation by making himself available for interrogation by the police officer/investigating officer as and when required.
(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/investigating officer.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
In default of any of the aforesaid conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt. Advocate will be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
The applicant is directed to produce a certified copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within a week from today, if investigation is in progress, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.
The interim protection shall not be extended on the next date without hearing learned counsel for the parties."
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that chargesheet has been filed in the matter. The applicant has not misused the liberty granted by this court. He has no criminal antecedents. He undertakes to cooperate in the trial.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer made by the applicant's counsel, however, he does not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he has not misused the liberty granted by this Court as well as cooperated during investigation.
On due consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of the record, so also the fact that legal notice was given by the applicant to the bank, delay of one year in lodging of the FIR, no verification of CCTV footage by the bank and as per undertaking by the applicant to cooperate in the trial, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, subject to his cooperation in the trial.
In view of the above as also keeping in view of the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC OnLine 98, the interim order dated is affirmed. However, the accused-applicant-Rajneesh Pandey is directed to surrender before trial court if he is summoned to face trial for offence in question after filing of the charge sheet. The accused-applicant shall be released on bail by the trial court on the same bail bond(s) as executed by him consequent to the order passed by this Court, as extracted above, subject to his satisfaction, with the following conditions:
(i) 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 tamper with the evidence;
(ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness;
(iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;
Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.
It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
It is further made clear that in case the accused-applicant has not been arrested during investigation, then he shall be released on bail as directed above, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
In view of the aforesaid, the anticipatory bail application is allowed.
Order Date :- 12.1.2023
kkv/
