Bijendra Pal Rana vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 14555 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 49
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5173 of 2023
 
Applicant :- Bijendra Pal Rana
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Devesh Mishra,Atipriya Gautam,Madhaw Pandey,Sr. Advocate
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

Heard Mr. Vijay Gautam, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Madhav Pandey, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

Perused the record.

At the very outset, the learned Senior Counsel upon instructions submits that permission be granted by this Court to amend the cause title of present application by deleting opposite party 2 from the same as he has neither a necessary nor a proper party.

Prayer made by the learned counsel for applicant is bona-fide. Same is not opposed by the learned A.G.A.

Accordingly, it is allowed.

Let necessary amendment in the cause title of the present application be carried out by the learned counsel for applicant during course of the day.

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant-Bijendra Pal Rana, in connection with Case Crime No. 231 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 342 IPC and Sections 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station-Sadar Bazar, District-Meerut.

At the very outset, the learned Senior Counsel contends that applicant had earlier approached this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. NO. 17888 of 2021 (Bijendra Pal Singh Rana Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others). Aforesaid application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 08.12.2021. However, the protection was extended by this Court in favour of applicant only till the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. For ready reference, the above order is extracted hereinunder:-

"(1) Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned senior counsel assisted by Atipriya Gautam, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A and perused the record.

(2) The instant application is being moved by the applicant Bijendra Pal Singh Rana invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. that he has every reason to believe that he may be arrested on the accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence in connection with Case Crime no. 231 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 342 IPC and Section 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Sadar Bazar District Meerut.

(3) From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court after getting his anticipatory bail rejected from the Court of Session vide order dated 16.9.2021.

(4) Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

(5) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has got no criminal antecedents and he have not undergone any imprisonment after conviction by any court of law in relation to any cognizable offence previously. An assurance was also advanced by learned counsel for the applicant on behalf of the applicant that he would render all requisite co-operation and assistance in the process of law and with the investigating agency and shall not create any hindrance to reach to its logical conclusion and shall not flee away from the course of justice.

(6) Learned counsel for the applicant has strenuously argued that the applicant has been made target just to besmirch his reputation and belittle him in the public estimate by the informant. Number of arguments were advanced by learned counsel for the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the accusation made in the FIR against the applicants by the informant. Learned counsel for the applicants has also relied upon the judgements in the cases of Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273; Joginder Kumar vs State of U.P. and others (1994) 4 SCC 260 and Sanaul Haque vs State of U.P. and another, 2008 Cri. LJ 1998, to buttress his contentions.

(7) Submission made by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the SHO of P.S. Sadar Bazar District Meerut. A case crime no.16/2021 was registered way back on 5.2.2021 by one Abdul Salam regarding theft of his truck and after lodging of the FIR, the I.O. of the case on 22.5.2021 submitted a closure report. However, at the instance of the SSP, Meerut the case was entrusted to the applicant for getting the further investigation into the matter. The applicant after holding further investigation worked out the case and found that it is Abdul Salam himself who is said to have been involved in this offence and dismantled his own truck and sold out the same for a consideration of Rs.4,34,000/-.

In this process the name of the present informant Vikar Amir surfaced and was summoned to police station and confronted with Abdul Salam.

After conducting the preliminary investigation the applicant has let loose Vikar Amir who lodged the present FIR against the applicant and Head Constable Manmohan Singh.

The Court has occasion to peruse the statement of the informant under Section 164 CrPC and found that surprisingly there is no whisper against the applicant that he has ever demanded or received any illegal gratification from the informant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been awarded by the gallantry award and is an upright officer. The applicant is ready to participate in the investigation provided his interest is protected.

(8) Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application by mentioning that though the applicant has got no criminal antecedents but there is nothing on record to satisfy that the police personnel are after the applicant to arrest him. The alleged apprehension on behalf of applicant is imaginary and unfounded one. Learned A.G.A. has also submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the applicants are not entitled for any relaxation from this Court.

(9) After the close scrutiny of Section 438 Cr.P.C.(U.P. Act No.4 of 2019) and its relevant clauses, the Court is satisfied that the applicant has made out the case for interim order protecting the liberty of applicant in connection with aforesaid case crime pending investigation.

(10) Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may be adversely affect the investigation and subsequent stage of the case, the Court directs that in the event of arrest of the applicant in aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer till the submission of report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer with the conditions that :

(i) The applicant/applicants shall make himself/themselves available for the interrogation by the police as and when required. The Investigating Officer of the case would give 48 hours prior notice or telephonically inform the concerned accused-applicant to remain available to him/them for the purposes of interrogation and the accused-applicants are obliged to abide by such directions.

(ii) The applicant/applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threats or comments to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the correct facts to the court or to the police officer.

(iii) The Investigating Officer of the case would make all necessary endeavour to gear up the investigation in utmost transparent and professional way and would try to conclude the same within a maximum period of 90 days. During this period the accused-applicants would not leave the State of Uttar Pradesh without informing the Investigating Officer of the case and sharing his contact number.

(iv) In the event the applicant/applicants is/are having his/their passports, he/they will have to surrender the same before the concerned SP/SSP of the District till the submission of report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C.

(11) In the event, the applicant breach or attempt to breach any of the aforesaid conditions or wilfully violate above conditions or abstains himself from the investigation, it would be open for the Investigating Officer or the concerned authority to apply before the court of Session for cancellation of interim protection and the Court of Session has every liberty and freedom to revoke the anticipatory bail after recording the reasons for the same.

(12) While entertaining the instant anticipatory bail application before this Court, there is no concrete material on record except the canvassed apprehension of the applicant on his arrest and the severity of accusation made in the FIR against him. After being satisfied on the limited material, the interest/liberty of the applicant is protected by this Court with aforesaid riders during the course of investigation, after recording its nascent satisfaction. However, continuance of instant interim protection or ultimate fate of instant application would be decided, subject to the counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. and the material brought on record against the applicant during the investigation.

(13) The S.S.P. Meerut is directed to entrust the investigation of the present case to an officer of Additional S.P. rank who will conduct the investigation of the case and submit his report under Section 173(2) CrPC within 90 days (maximum).

(14) Learned A.G.A. should file counter affidavit soon after submission of report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. or 90 days, whichever is earlier.

(15) Life of the instant protection would continue till the submission of charge sheet or 90 days, whichever is earlier.

(16) List this anticipatory bail application after two months before appropriate Court."

Learned Senior Counsel for applicant has invited the attention of Court to paragraph 7 of the above order and on basis thereof, he submits that no material improvement has taken place even upon completion of the investigation of concerned case crime number. The factual position as noted by this Court in paragraph 7 of the said order still continues to subsist.

On the above premise, he, therefore, submits that liberty of applicant is liable to be protected by this Court. It is also contended that even otherwise, applicant is a government servant working on the post of Inspector in U.P. police. As such, there are no chances of his fleeing away or not co-operating with the trial. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. No such circumstance exist in the present case warranting custodial arrest of applicant during the course of trial. To buttress his submission, he has referred to the order of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 6).

On the cumulative strength of above, he, therefore, submits that liberty of applicant be protected by granting him the benefit of anticipatory bail during the course of trial.

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application for anticipatory bail. He submits that since applicant is a charge sheeted accused and there does not exist any peculiar circumstance, therefore, the jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised by this Court in favour of applicant. He has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dislodge the factual/legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

Having heard, the learned Senior Counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, matter requires consideration.

Notice on behalf of opposite party 1 has been accepted by the learned A.G.A.

Issue notice to opposite party 2.

All the opposite parties may file their respective counter affidavits on or before the next date fixed.

List for orders on the date fixed in the notice.

In view of above, in the event of arrest, applicant-Bijendra Pal Rana shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Order Date :- 9.5.2023/Vinay