Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Goswami vs State Of U.P. on 11 May, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:101533
Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4383 of 2023
Applicant :- Sanjay Goswami
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Agarwal,Shubham Agarwal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Amit Saxena, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rahul Agarwal, counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case No.5817 of 2018 (State vs. Rajeev Goswami and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.1200 of 2017, under Sections 406 and 420 IPC at Police Station- Noida Sector- 49, District Gautam Budh Nagar with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the informant is stated to have executed general power of attorney in favour of the applicant in the year 2011, as such in pursuant to it, the applicant had sold the said property for a consideration of Rs.25,50,000/-. The said amount is stated to have been under value as the applicant is stated to have sold the said property for a consideration of Rs.75 lakhs. The applicant is stated to have not remitted the said amount to the informant despite being agreed.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. All the transactions have taken place between 2011 and 2017 and the FIR has been instituted in the year 2018. There is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned Senior Counsel has further stated that in addition to the applicant, the other members of the family have also been implicated in the case and all of them have been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court. The present case is civil in nature and has been converted into criminal one by the informant. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained in paragraph 26 of the affidavit filed with the bail application. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. 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. 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.
7. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Sanjay Goswami be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i). that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii). 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 or tamper with the evidence;
(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
9. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
(Krishan Pahal, J.)
Order Date :- 11.5.2023
Ravi Kant
