Vimlesh Goswami And 2 Others vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 4653 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Vimlesh Goswami And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. on 5 February, 2025

Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav

Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:16535
 
Court No. - 35
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2523 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Vimlesh Goswami And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Daga,Devendra Kumar Upadhyay
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Akhilesh Srivastava,Anshu Chaudhary,G.A.,Saksham Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
 

1. Heard Mr. Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Dharampal Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Anshu Chaudhary, learned counsel for the informant.

2. This anticipatory bail application (under Section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.644 of 2020, under Sections 347, 392, 376, 406 and 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah.

3. Prosecution story, as mentioned in the impugned FIR, is that the husband of the informant, namely, Anil Shukla is engaged in business of supply of Mobil Oil from whom one Vimlesh Goswami after paying some amount had purchased Mobil Oil worth Rs.25,00,000/- in the name of Goswami Automobile. It is further alleged that for remaining amount, on 31.07.2017 he gave two cheques of Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.7,60,000/- to Vaishno Maa Traders, but later on, he asked the husband of the informant not to deposit the cheque in the bank and take the payment in cash. It is further alleged that on 13.11.2017 when the husband of the informant Anil Shukla reached at Goswami Automobile to collect the cash then Vimlesh Goswami gave him only Rs.7,00,000/- and made him sit in Jaswant Yadav's car and after sitting in the car, Jaswant Yadav along with two other companions looted the money by putting a gun. It is further alleged that accused have also looted everything and kidnapped the husband of the informant by tying his hands and feet in a tubewell pit in Dharatpur village. It is further alleged that three days later, Jaswant Yadav and Vimlesh Goswami called the informant along with 23 tola of gold, 1 kg silver and Rs.4,50,000/- in exchange for releasing her husband. It is further alleged that informant and her two sons were kept hostage by Vimlesh Goswami, Jaswant Yadav, Prem Goswami and Narendra Upadhyay on the third floor of their house for 88 days. It is further alleged that informant's two cars, which were in the name of her husband, were arrogantly taken away from her house. It is further alleged that when informant's husband somehow got freed and upon creating pressure, the informant and her children were released by the police after 88 days.

4. Mr. Daga, learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicants in fact no such incident has taken place as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicants have never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. As per impugned FIR, the incident is said to have taken place between 30.01.20217 to 13.11.2017 at unknown time whereas the impugned FIR has been lodged on 24.09.2020. There is a delay of more than three years in lodging the FIR, which itself goes to show the frivolity and falsity of the prosecution case. He further submits that after lodging the FIR, the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons have approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.13965 of 2020 and a Divison Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.12.2020 dismissed the said writ petition directing the applicants to file anticipatory bail, thereafter, the applicants have approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.238 of 2021 and vide order dated 08.01.2021, interim protection was granted in favour of the applicants. He further submits that during investigation, no credible evidence was found against the applicants, hence, final report was submitted and after submission of final report, the above anticipatory bail of the applicants was dismissed as infructuous. He further submits that against final report, protest petition was also filed which is still pending, but in the meantime, the Senior Superintendent of Police without any cogent reason and without applying his mind passed an order dated 23.09.2023 directing for reinvestigation. He further submits that in pursuance of the order dated 23.09.2023, reinvestigation is going on and till date no charge sheet has been submitted.

5. Mr. Daga, learned counsel for the applicants further submits that earlier this Court has granted interim protection to the applicants till filing of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. but till date no charge sheet has been submitted. He further submits that applicants are fully cooperating in investigation, hence, they may be enlarge on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial. They have assured this Court that they will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial. Applicants are having no criminal history.

6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants and have prayed for rejection by submitting that allegations are very serious and in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicants, applicants are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicants are not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicants, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicants are directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

8. In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants-Vimlesh Goswami, Prem Goswami and Jaswant Yadav, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicants shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation;

(ii) The applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) The applicants shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

(iv) The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

(v) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicants.

(vi) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

(vii) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

9. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

10. Court below is also directed to conclude the trial of the aforesaid case, in accordance with law, within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this Court, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. It is made clear that adjournment shall only be granted on heavy cost.

11. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed.

Order Date :- 5.2.2025

Ajeet