Allahabad High Court
Ram Nazar Dubey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 15 April, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20911
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 384 of 2025
Applicant :- Ram Nazar Dubey
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko
Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Mishra,Zubair Hasan
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 State.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
3. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 94 of 1999 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC & 13(1)C Act r/w-Section 13(2) of PC Act, Police Station Kakadev, District Kanpur.
4. As per contents of First Information Report, an incident is said to have taken on record on 17.01.1994 in Malleshwaram, Bangalore wherein certain employees were implicated with regard to embezzlement in the said sale center of U.P. Hand-loom Corporation. It is stated that the applicant is also one of the persons who was a co-conspirator.
5. It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that with regard to the said incident, certain employees excluding the applicant were implicated and tried whereafter they were acquitted by a Court of competent jurisdiction in Bangalore vide judgment dated 14.08.1997. It is submitted that applicant was neither implicated in the FIR nor was he tried for the said offences and it is only subsequently on the basis of a letter of the Minister concerned that a vigilance inquiry was conducted and the applicant was charge-sheeted under the said sections.
6. It is submitted that said charge-sheet was thereafter challenged by applicant in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 1207 of 2003 in which this Court by means of interim order dated 04.03.2023 stayed further proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 47 of 2001. It is submitted that the aforesaid application was thereafter disposed of vide order dated 25.03.2019 granting liberty to applicant to file his discharge application while granting interim protection. It is submitted that subsequently the applicant's discharge application has been rejected on 19.01.2024, against which application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 25350 of 2024 has been filed before this Court at Allahabad, which is still pending and in the meantime a bailable warrant has been issued against applicant on 04.10.2024 whereafter non-bailable warrant is also issued on 05.02.2025. It is submitted that the aforesaid narration will clearly indicate the fact that there was no initial trial against the applicant and that he has co-operated during the course of investigation which would be evident from the fact that charge-sheet was filed in the matter on 05.07.2001 and cognizance was thereafter also taken on 19.07.2001. It is submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history and undertakes to cooperate during the course of trial.
7. Learned AGA has opposed anticipatory bail application with the submission that once the applicant's discharge application had been rejected, the aspect of issuance of bailable warrant itself indicates that applicant is not cooperating during course of trial with non-bailable warrant also being issued subsequently. It is also submitted that there is no interim order passed by this Court in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 25350 of 2024.
8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, it appears that initially the charges were levelled against certain employees of Hand-loom Corporation in which they were acquitted in 1997 but the applicant was neither implicated nor tried at that time and his name has been nominated subsequently upon a vigilance inquiry having been conducted. It is also evident that the aforesaid proceedings was stayed by this Court in the year 2023 and were decided only thereafter in the year 2019 granting liberty to applicant to file a discharge application which has subsequently been rejected only in the year 2024 with bailable and non-bailable warrants having been issued subsequently. It is also evident that allegations levelled pertained to the year 1994 in which charge-sheet has already been filed in the year 2001. At present there does not appear to be any occasion for applicant to interfere with the trial or the witnesses. The aspect of applicant participating in the trial is taken care of by his undertaking that he will participate in the said proceedings. Thus, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, it would be appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 BNNS.
9. In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant Ram Nazar Dubey shall be released on anticipatory bail in aforesaid Case Crime number on his/her furnishing a personal bond 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) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;
Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.
10. It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
11.The application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 15.4.2025
Satish
