Allahabad High Court
Raj Karan Singh Alias Raj Duggal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 12 September, 2023
Bench: Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:58806
Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1909 of 2022
Applicant :- Raj Karan Singh Alias Raj Duggal
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Shukla,Jitendra Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. The advocates are abstaining from judicial work today. However, as the question of personal liberty of the applicant is involved in the present case, I proceed to examine the merits of the case after perusal of record and with the assistance of learned AGA.
2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 38/2021, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow.
3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 31.01.2021 against one Akhilesh Kumar, stating that the named accused was an officer of the bank, he has been suspended and in an inquiry, it was found that he had committed financial irregularities to the tune of Rs. 45 crore approximately.
4. In the statement of the named accused Akhilesh Kumar, he implicated the applicant also, besides some other persons.
5. On 27.01.2023, this Court had passed following interim order granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant:-
"Heard learned counsel the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/F.I.R No. 38/2021, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow.
As per prosecution story, in the F.I.R. it is alleged that Akhilesh Kumar the then Branch Manager of the Syndicate Bank which has now merged into the Canera Bank has been informed personally responsible in the embezzlement of Rs.45 crores of the bank regarding which an internal inquiry is going on.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is not named in the F.I.R. The statement on behalf of the learned A.G.A. that Section 82 Cr.P.C. proceedings have been initiated against the applicant which was given on 28.11.2022 is incorrect, no such order has been passed by the learned trial court.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that there is no iota of evidence against the applicant and on the basis of suspicion, Investigating Officer is trying to arrest him. The suspicion is on account of the alleged fact that applicant accompanied the accused persons for opening the account of Kumar Enterprises in the name of Manoj Kumar through which Rs.45 crores have been embezzled. Counsel for applicant further submits that applicant has no criminal antecedents and investigation is going on. Applicant undertakes to cooperate in the investigation.
Issue notice to respondent No. 2.
Learned Addl. Government Advocate prays for and is allowed 15 days' time to file counter affidavit.
List on 24.02.2023.
Considering the above aspect of the matter, perusal of the record as well as the fact that applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and has no criminal antecedents, as also the judgment of Apex Court passed in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.
The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.
In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection."
6. The notice issued to opposite party no. 2 was served but the opposite party no. 2 has not put in appearance to press the application.
7. The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of material collected during investigation stating that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation and instead he has filed an application under Section 138 Cr.P.C.
8. It has been stated that the applicant had accompanied another co-accused while he had gone to open a bank account in the name of Kumar Enterprises, Proprietor Manoj Kumar and Rs. 37 crore were transferred to the aforesaid bank account.
9. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicant is not named in the FIR and he was implicated in the present case solely on the basis of custodial statement of the co-accused person, who stated that the applicant was accompanying the another co-accused person when he had gone to open the bank account in the name of Kumar Enterprises; that besides the aforesaid allegation, there is absolutely no other allegation against the applicant and even it has not been alleged that the applicant had identified the person for opening the bank account; that the applicant has no criminal history and that no violation of conditions of interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant by means of the interim order dated 27.01.2023 has been brought to light, I am of the view that the order dated 27.01.2023 deserves to be made absolute.
10. Accordingly, the application is allowed in terms of the interim order dated 27.01.2023.
11. In case the applicant has not furnished bail bonds in compliance of the order dated 27.01.2023 till date, he shall do so within a period of two weeks from today.
Order Date :- 12.9.2023
Pradeep/-
