Allahabad High Court
Chandan Sen vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 9 January, 2025
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:4642
Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 12082 of 2024
Applicant :- Chandan Sen
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. C.P. Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard Dr. C. P. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Dubey, holding brief of Sri Bhaiya Ghanshyam Singh, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicant for enlarging him on anticipatory bail in Criminal Case No.12878 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No.06 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Rasda, District Ballia.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive; Applicant is a retired Deputy Commissioner, District Industries Center, Ballia. Applicant has retired on 31.06.2015 and FIR has been lodged against applicant after about more than 3 years on application filed U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleged therein that through registered partner deed an agreement took place between informant alongwith three others and the applicant regarding M/s Raj Udyog, Industrial Estate, Rasda, Ballia, P.S. Kotwali, Rasda an allegation alleged that partners of M/s Raj Udyog is not fulfilling the conditions prescribed in the agreement by illicit motive. By order dated 04.12.2014 an approval was granted to include new partners in place of old partners. Subsequently, order dated 04.12.2014 was set aside by order dated 26.10.2015. Applicant and partners, thereafter, entered into mediation proceedings. The District Magistrate constituted mediation committee, thereafter, on basis of mediation, a mediation order was passed on 06.01.2020. Investigation was continued and Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet in the year 2019, thereafter, applicant challenged the charge sheet and NBW issued against him and by way of 482 application bearing No.11466 of 2024, the co-ordindate Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 19.04.2024 disposed off the 482 application with following directions:-
"(i) The applicant shall file a surrender application along with bail application before the court concerned within 7 days from today;
(ii) In case, the surrender application is filed by the applicant as directed hereinabove, the court concerned shall call for instructions from the Public Prosecutor/police authorities and fix a date for surrender/appearance of the applicant;
(iii) On the date fixed for surrender/appearance of the applicant, the applicant shall appear before the court concerned;
(iv) The bail application filed by the applicant shall be considered along with the surrender application."
4. Applicant's counsel further submitted that the applicant is apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would co-operate with the investigation. In support of his contention, applicant's counsel has placed reliance over the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Asha Dubey Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.4564 of 2024 on 12.11.2024.
5. Sri Dubey, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the applicant. Charge sheet has been submitted by Investigating Officer against the applicant in the year 2019, thereafter, applicant challenged the charge sheet and NBW in the year 2024 by way of filing 482 Application, the same was disposed of with direction to surrender before the trial court and apply for bail within 7 days but applicant deliberately did not surrender nor appear before the trial court, therefore, trial court initiated proceedings U/s 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. The applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court, hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected. In support of his contention, in has placed reliance over the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Apex Court in the case of Srikant Upadhyay Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2024 SC (Criminal) 605, the relevant para 25 is quoted herein below:-
"25. The factual narration made hereinbefore would reveal the consistent disobedience of the appellants to comply with the orders of the trial Court. They failed to appear before the Trial Court after the receipt of the summons, and then after the issuance of bailable warrants even when their co-accused, after the issuance of bailable warrants, applied and obtained regular bail. Though the appellants filed an application, which they themselves described as "bail-cum-surrender application" on 23.08.2022, they got it withdrawn on the fear of being arrested. Even after the issuance of non- bailable warrants on 03.11.2022 they did not care to appear before the Trial Court and did not apply for regular bail after its recalling. It is a fact that even after coming to know about the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.PC., they did not take any steps to challenge the same or to enter appearance before the Trial Court to avert the consequences. Such conduct of the appellants in the light of the aforesaid circumstances, leaves us with no hesitation to hold that they are not entitled to seek the benefit of pre-arrest bail."
6. The object of anticipatory bail 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.
7. 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 tempering 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. Considering the argument raised by applicant's counsel and informant's counsel and perused the material available on record, it is evident that charge sheet was submitted against the applicant in the year 2019 and more than six years have passed but applicant has not taken any initiative to appear before the trial court and from the record it is apparent that applicant has deliberately avoided trial proceedings, from record it is evident that applicant was well aware about proceeding pending before trial court, as he challenged the charge-sheet, moreover, process U/s 82, 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued. I find no good ground for anticipatory bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case. No interference is warranted.
9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of applicant-Chandra Sen, is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 9.1.2025
Nitin Verma
(Deepak Verma, J.)
