Allahabad High Court
Deepak Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Inspector Vigilance ... on 7 April, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19393
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 331 of 2025
Applicant :- Deepak Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Inspector Vigilance Cell Kanpur Nagar
Counsel for Applicant :- Pranjal Krishna,Anubhav Verma,Vaibhav Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1.
2. Complainant being the Department concerned, notice stands dispensed with.
3. on 19.03.2025, the following order had been passed:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
3. This Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with regard to Criminal Case No.1280 of 2018; Crime No.307 of 2009 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC read with Section 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Feelkhana, District Kanpur Nagar.
4. As per allegations made in first information report, the applicant had applied in the Irrigation Department for appointment on the post of Signaler(Gyapnik)/Taar Babu, which is a Class III post. The allegations levelled is that applicant procured such appointment in year 2004 on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.
5. Subsequently, first information report registered as Crime No.307 of 2009 was lodged by one Ram Prasad Yadav, Inspector, Vigilance against eight persons including applicant. Charge sheet in said Criminal Case No.1280 of 2018 was also filed.
6. It is submitted that against aforesaid charge sheet, applicant filed Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. registered as 8228 of 2018, which was disposed of vide order dated 19.12.2018 granting liberty to applicant to surrender before Court concerned within a period of 30 days and was also granted protection as laid down in Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., 2004 (57) ALR 290. It was also directed that till disposal of Application for grant of Bail, no coercive action would be taken against applicant.
7. However, applicant due to a heart condition was unable to comply with the liberty so granted and therefore filed an application for extension of time period, which was also allowed vide order dated 15.03.2019. It is submitted that owing to his ill-health, the applicant was unable to comply with the extended time as well and thereafter filed another Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing no.24820 of 2023, which was also dismissed vide order dated 29.08.2023 granting liberty to file application for discharge at the appropriate stage which was to be disposed of in accordance with law.
8. It has been submitted that although such liberty as granted earlier by this Court has not been taken advantage of by Applicant but the same would not come in the way of consideration of Anticipatory Bail Application. It is submitted that even otherwise, petitioner's case is covered by various orders passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court including Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51. It is also submitted that till date no orders terminating or dismissing applicant from service has been passed by authority concerned and applicant is still continuing in service. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on judgment and order dated 19.06.2020 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Jawahar Lal @ Jawahar Lal Jalaj (Anticipatory Bail No.3096 of 2020) v. Union of India to submit that even after dismissal of Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., Application for Anticipatory Bail would be maintainable.
9. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the Bail Application with submission that since liberty had thrice been granted to applicant to surrender before court concerned and to apply for regular bail and to file a discharge application, the applicant having not adhered to the same, is not entitled to any relief since his bonafides are not clear.
10. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material placed on record, it is admitted that charge sheet in aforesaid case had been filed in year 2018 whereafter the same was challenged in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which was rejected granting liberty to applicant to surrender before court concerned and apply for regular bail. Despite extension of said order, the same was not complied with by applicant. The applicant again challenged the proceedings in subsequent Application in year 2023, which has also been rejected granting liberty to applicant to file discharge application before court concerned.
11. It is quite evident that despite specific liberty having been granted to applicant, as noticed herein above, advantage thereof has not been taken by applicant.
12. However, an aspect requiring consideration would be whether in the light of first information report, petitioner has or has not been terminated or dismissed from service and is still continuing on his earlier post?
13. List this case on 24.03.2025, as fresh, in order to enable learned Additional Government Advocate to obtain instructions thereupon. "
4. Despite time having been granted, instructions have not been provided to learned Additional Government Advocate with regard to question posed on the previous occasion.
5. Learned counsel for applicant has placed reliance on following judgments rendered by coordinate Benches of this Court as well as by Hon'ble the Supreme Court to submit that even after such liberty having been granted and not availed of by applicant, an application for anticipatory bail would still be maintainable and can be entertained:-
(i) Mahendra Kumar v. State of U.P. (Anticipatory Bail Application No.3800 of 2022);
(ii) Dr. Rajni Tripathi v. State of U.P. (Anticipatory Bail Application No.8059 of 2023); and
(iii) Vinod Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3225.
6. In view of judgments which have been relied upon by learned counsel for applicant which in turn places reliance on judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Siddharth v. State of UP : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 615; Aman Preet Singh v. C.B.I. through Director : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 941 and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, it would be discernible that despite directions having been issued by this Court in an Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. directing applicant to avail himself of remedy of discharge and such remedy not being availed of by applicant, an Application for anticipatory bail would be maintainable.
7. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is also evident that after submission of charge sheet, applicant did not surrender as directed by this Court leading to issuance of non-bailable warrant, it is therefore provided that applicant shall be entitled to file a regular bail application before the trial court within a period of 30 days from today, i.e. by 06.05.2025 which shall be decided expeditiously in terms of judgments referred to herein above.
8. In view of aforesaid, it is provided that till 06.05.2025, or disposal of the regular bail application which may be moved by the applicant before the trial court, whichever is earlier, in the event of arrest of the applicant namely Deepak Kumar involved in Criminal Case No.1280 of 2018; Crime No.307 of 2009 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC read with Section 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Feelkhana, District Kanpur Nagar, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) 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 tamper with the evidence;
(ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(v) The applicants shall deposit his passport with the trial court and if he has not been issued any passport, an affidavit in this regard shall be filed before the trial court.
9. If the applicant will not follow the terms of this order set-forth herein-before, after 06.05.2025, he shall not be entitled for any benefit of the instant order.
10. The application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 7.4.2025
kvg/-
