Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep vs State Of Up And 2 Others on 20 May, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:90484
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1611 of 2024
Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep
Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Shambhavi Nandan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
1-Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
2-This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant-Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 361 of 2018, under Sections 386, 427, 342, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C. and Sections 7/13(1)A, 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Sector 58 Noida, District Gautambudh Nagar during the pendency of trial.
3-The facts of the case which are required for disposal of this case are that the complainant-Rahul Singh Bhist has lodged an F.I.R. against Anil Pratap Singh, In-charge Inspector; Rajesh Kumar Singh, S.S.I.; a private person and 10-12 police personnel of Police Station Sector 58, Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar alleging inter-alia that he runs an N.G.O. namely ITES on the second floor of Plot No. A-51, Sector 57, Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar, in which 35 people works. On 14.06.2018 at about 10:30 pm, he left for dinner. After sometime, the office guard informed him that some police personnel are asking for the owner of the N.G.O. When the complainant reached his office, In-charge Inspector Anil Pratap Singh, S.S.I. Rajesh Kumar Singh and other police personnel of Police Station Sector 58 were present. They enquired about the work we perform and on showing them the work/record, a private person, who came along with them, cut the wires of the CCTV camera and claimed that he will prove that a fake organization is being run here. Thereafter the police personnel collected the mobile phones, watches and laptop and took them (ten in numbers) along with him to police station at about 11:13 in the night where he (complainant) was asked that how much money he can pay. On showing his inability to pay any amount, they threatened the complainant by saying that we take 20-25 lacs for an encounter and you are a businessman, you can easily pay 40-50 lacs. F.I.R. further alleges that when they threatened the complainant to face dire consequences, he arranged rupees ten lac at 01:30 am and rupees eight lac at 02:00 am. Thereafter, police personnel released the complainant and his staff. The complainant, on the point of pistol, gave rupees eighteen lac to save his life as well as of his staff. Thereafter, police personnel on one pretext or another trying to harass the complainant for extorting money by calling or messaging him.
4-Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for applicant is that the applicant is a constable in U.P. Police. Applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and has been falsely implicated in this case only on the pretext that he accompanied his senior officer with whom he was on duty. It is also submitted that against him, a departmental enquiry has been conducted, in which he was exonerated from the charges, however, the investigating officer ignoring the said fact, submitted charge-sheet dated 01.12.2022 against him. It is next submitted that against him, charge-sheet under Section 7/13(1)A, 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act has also been filed whereas he has neither demanded nor received any money from the complainant. Lastly, it is submitted that he has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he would not misuse the liberty and would cooperate with the trial.
5-Per contra learned Additional Government Advocate for the state of U.P. opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant by contending that in this case, accused are police personnel. It is next submitted that the investigating officer, after due investigation, submitted charge sheet dated 01.12.2022, on which the applicant was summoned on 04.07.2023 to face trial. It is also submitted that charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant on the basis of cogent material, therefore, as on date cognizable offence is made out against the applicant and it can not be presumed that he has been falsely implicated.
6-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material brought on record as well as complicity of accused-applicant and also judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the applicant.
7-Accordingly, the instant application for anticipatory bail is rejected.
Order Date :- 20.5.2024
Saurabh
