Allahabad High Court
Rohit Puri vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 May, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70211
Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 3440 of 2025
Applicant :- Rohit Puri
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Avanish Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
2-This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under section 482 BNSS has been moved by the applicant after submission of charge-sheet and rejecting his anticipatory bail application vide order dated 13.08.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge/ Special Judge, Special Court No. 1 (Prevention of Corruption Act), Meerut seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 117 of 2024, under Sections 420, 120B IPC and Section 7-A of Prevention of Corruption Act, police station Sarsawa, district Saharanpur.
3-As per prosecution case in brief, on 11.05.2024, legally sold molasses was being lifted from the Kisan Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd., Sarsawa. In this sequence, molasses was to be made available to 12 vehicles. The Molasses Clerk and Excise Sub-Inspector illegally got 02 tankers registration no. HR 58 B-1514 and PB 11 BY 6453 entered into the factory and they adopting the corrupt methods for their personal benefits, got 600 quintals of molasses filled in both tankers with intention of stealing estimated value of about Rs. 80.00 lakhs. On receiving the information, they were apprehended at the spot. Accordingly, F.I.R. was lodged against 4 persons, namely, Arvind Kumar, Shiv Kumar, Chandrabhan Singh and Baburam. Complicity of the applicant came into light during investigation. The applicant, who is owner of M/s Shiv Shakti Trading Saharanpur, was also involved in the said stealing of molasses with the named accused persons, adopting different modus operandi.
4-Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and he has been falsely implicated in this case, whereas he had no connection with the alleged affairs relating to co-accused. Though the applicant is running a business under the name of M/s Shiv Shakti Trading at Saharanpur and he works only to rent out trucks / tankers. He had nothing to do with the tankers used in the said incident. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false and based on concocted facts. Investigating officer has not conducted fair investigation. No offence is made out against the applicant.
5-Per contra, learned Additional Govt. Advocate for the State of U.P. opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant by contending that during investigation, investigating officer collected C.D.R. of mobile no. 8218543255 of the applicant, detail of the same is mentioned in CD No.16. On perusal of the same, it was revealed that from 12.02.2024 to 12.05 2024, applicant talked to co-accused Shivkumar total 118 times, 5 times with named accused Arvind Kumar and total 41 times with name accused tanker driver Baburam. The investigating officer after due investigation submitted charge-sheet dated 03.10.2024 in this case on the basis of cogent material against the applicant, on which, cognizance was taken on 28.01.2025, therefore, as on date, cognizable offence is made out against the applicant and it cannot be presumed that he has been falsely implicated. It is also submitted that the order-sheet of the trial court has not been filed by the applicant. Lastly, it is submitted that 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, refusal of anticipatory bail in an appropriate case does not amount to denial of rights conferred upon applicant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Since there is no exceptional ground to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in favour of the applicant. Hence, the instant anticipatory bail application is liable to be rejected.
6-Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that charge-sheet has been filed in this case and on the charge-sheet, the concerned Court has taken cognizance. As on date, I do not find any material on record to give any finding that applicant has been falsely implicated.
7-The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C.K. and another, 2022 Live law (SC) 870 has held that while considering anticipatory bail, the nature of offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. It is also held that even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.
8-Here it would also be apposite to mention the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Devinder Kumar Bansal Vs. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 488, wherein the Apex Court has laid down the criteria for considering anticipatory bail in the matters relating to the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which are as under:-
"21. The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence like corruption are required to be satisfied. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime or the allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous. So far as the case at hand is concerned, it cannot be said that any exceptional circumstances have been made out by the petitioner accused for grant of anticipatory bail and there is no frivolity in the prosecution.
22. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a pronouncement in Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy, (2013) 7 SCC 452: (2013) 7 Scale 15, wherein this Court expressed thus:
"28. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt."
(Emphasis supplied)
23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused's liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice.
24. If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption free society, then the courts should not hesitate in denying such liberty. Where overwhelming considerations in the nature aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a different thing to say that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, the court may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant-accused of indulging in corruption."
9-In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, as well as considering the fact that after investigation charge has been submitted against the applicant, this court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power under Section 482 BNSS is made out in favour of applicant.
10-Accordingly this application under section 482 BNSS 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. Learned concerned Court below while considering regular bail application of the applicant shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions according to law on the basis of materials / evidences on record.
Order Date :- 2.5.2025
Shubham
