Ramjeet vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 9405 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ramjeet vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 April, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:57707
 
Court No. - 78
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1371 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Ramjeet
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Kumar Sahani,Narendra Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused record.

2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by applicant-Ramjeet, seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 513 of 2018, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)D of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Cantt., District Gorakhpur, (transferred to Economice Offences Wing U.P. at Lucknow), till conclusion of trial.

3. The matter was previously heard by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 20.02.2025 and applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail till the next date of listing or till submission of police report, if any, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and learned State Counsel at the time of passing interim anticipatory bail order dated 20.02.2025 are quoted as under:-

"4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that for a first information report lodged on 21.06.2018 in which the applicant is not named and the investigation of which is pending and no police report under Section 193 (3) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 has been submitted till date, now efforts are being made to arrest the applicant, paragraph 8 of the affidavit has been placed with regards to the averment regarding pendency of investigation and paragraph 6 has been placed with regards to the apprehension of arrest of the applicant. It is submitted that co-accused Tamheed Alam who is also not named in the first information report has been granted stay of arrest by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 20081 of 2024 (Tamheed Alam Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), copy of which is annexed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit and further co- accused Ram Preet Ram and another have also been granted stay of arrest vide order dated 11.07.2018 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 18196 of 2018, copy of the said order is at page 67 of the paper-book and is annexure 6 of the affidavit. Further it is submitted that co-accused Ajeet Kumar Chaudhary has also been granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 11.02.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 482 BNSS No. 655 of 2025 (Ajeet Kumar Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. and another), copy of the order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 27 of the affidavit. It is submitted that after about 07 years of lodging of the first information report now efforts are being made to arrest the applicant despite the fact that he is not named in the first information report and there is an inordinate delay in the investigation.

5. Learned counsel for the State submits that as per his instructions the applicant has retired from the services and since the year 2024 his new address was not known and there was although an effort to arrest him but the same could not materialize. He further submits that the investigation in the matter shall be concluded within three weeks.

6. It is now a common feature seen that investigation taken up by the E.O.W. of the State of U.P. is lingering on for an unlimited period and after years there is effort of arrest of the accused persons by them. The investigation in the present matter is also with the E.O.W., U.P., Lucknow. The purpose of expeditious investigation seems to be totally left out by the E.O.W. department in every matter. Investigations are kept pending for years & years. It appears that either the supervision of the investigation is somewhere lacking and there is no seriousness for expeditious investigation within the department.

7. Learned counsel for the State shall file a progress report within two weeks and also explain the reasons for delay in investigation and also who has been responsible for its delay. The affidavit shall also disclose the fact whether the investigations are monitored by the E.O.W. or not and if they are then what is the procedure therein to ensure speedy and expeditious investigation."

4. Today on the matter being taken up, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State submits that after culmination of investigation in the matter, charge-sheet dated 24.02.2025 has been submitted against the accused applicant Ramjeet before the competent Court on 27.02.2025, which has been brought on record along with counter affidavit dated 18.03.2025 filed on behalf of the State. So far as allegation and material evidence against the applicant is concerned, it is further submitted that name of accused-applicant came into light during investigation. The applicant and the co-accused, in collusion with each other, by entering into a criminal conspiracy, with the intention of dishonesty, prepared forged application forms of fictitious beneficiaries for grant of loan through U.P. Cooperative Gram Vikas Bank Ltd., Branch Bansgaon, district Gorakhpur, for the Self Employment Scheme operated under Special Component Plan by U.P. Scheduled Caste Finance and Development Corporation Limited, Gorakhpur, from the financial year 2011-12 to 2015-16 for the Self Employment Scheme operated under Special Component Plan, and issued Rs. 1,12,40,000/- (rupees one crore, twelve lakh and forty thousand only) through total 85 cheques, out of which only Rs. 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand rupees only) was given to the right beneficiaries through only 02 cheques and remaining approximately Rs. 1,12,20,000/- (rupees one crore, twelve lakh and twenty thousand only) was embezzled from government funds, which they have divided amongst themselves, which has duly been proved form investigation. The aforesaid fact has been disclosed by the State in paragraph No. 17 of the counter affidavit. On the strength of aforesaid facts it is submitted that as on date cognizable offence is made out against the applicant and it cannot be presumed that he has been falsely implicated. In the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198, there is no exceptional ground to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

5. Record indicates that copy of counter affidavit dated 18.03.2025 was served upon the counsel for the applicant on 24.03.2025, but no rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant.

6. In response, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and charge-sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer against the applicant without conducting fair investigation. Lastly, it is submitted that in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial, he will not misuse the liberty and will cooperate with the trial

7. Object of Section 482 of B.N.S.S. 2023, is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains. It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this Court cannot be put in a straitjacket formula, but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from Justice, apprehension of tampering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation or society, etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society.

8. In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as mentioned above, gravity and nature of accusation, this Court is of the view that after submission of charge-sheet against the applicant and material evidence on record as noted above, no case for exercising its discretionary power for granting anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial, is made out in favour of applicant.

9. In view of the above, the prayer of the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial is hereby refused.

10. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is rejected.

11. It is clarified that anything said in this order at this stage is limited to the purpose of determination of this anticipatory bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court concerned shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions according to law on the basis of materials / evidences on record.

Order Date :- 18.4.2025

Kashifa