Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Kumar Jandwani @ Rajesh ... vs State Of U.P. on 3 May, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5019 of 2023
Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Jandwani @ Rajesh Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Himadari Batra,Hridesh Batra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Himadari Batra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashish Trivedi, learned counsel for the informant, Sri R.M. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for anticipatory bail in Criminal Case No.174 of 2022, Case Crime No.222 of 2021, under Sections 406, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Faridpur, City Bareilly, District Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have usurped an amount of Rs.15,30,000/- of the informant as he was supposed to give him in all Rs.25,30,000/- and had only transferred an amount of Rs.10 lakhs through RTGS to him in lieu of the paddy crop supplied to him.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations levelled in the FIR are per se false. The applicant had filed a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court, which was rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.02.2023 and the applicant was directed to apply for bail in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 and the applicant had filed anticipatory bail in the court concerned, which was rejected by the court concerned. The applicant is entitled for bail as he is a bona fide person. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. 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.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed much reliance on the judgment of Apex Court passed in the case of Kamlesh & Anr. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.1006 of 2019 (arising out of SLP(crl.) No.1530 of 2018), whereby it has been held that the concerned applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail despite having agitated a petition in the High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has placed much reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Shivam vs. State of U.P. and Another dated 05.04.2021, whereby it is stated that already the final report (charge-sheet) is there and there is ample evidence against the applicant and he is not entitled for anticipatory bail in view of paragraph 43(3) of the judgment dated 05.04.2021 passed in Shivam (supra).
8. The judgment, placed by the counsel for the applicant in the case of Kamlesh (supra), does not apply to the present case as it pertains to the State of Rajasthan where the petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is filed to challenge the FIR and not the charge-sheet.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the applicant had agitated the provision of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and failed, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
10. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected.
11. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of anticipatory bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
(Krishan Pahal, J.)
Order Date :- 3.5.2023
Ravi Kant
