Chattisgarh High Court
Ram Singh & Others vs Union Of India on 24 August, 2021
1
NAFR
(Proceedings through video conferencing)
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 11 of 2021
• R. K. Nagapure @ Rajendra Kumar Nagapure S/o Shri Moti
Ram Nagapure Aged About 58 Years R/o Shiv Nagar Colony,
Damoh Naka, Baldeobagh, Near Sansar Dhani Gas Company,
Jabalpur District Jabalpur (M.P.)
---- Applicant
Versus
• Central Bureau of Investigation A.C.B. Chhattisgarh, Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Non-applicant
MCRCA No. 58 of 2021
• P. K. Bhuwal @ Pawan Kumar Bhuwal S/o Late Shri Mohan
Singh Bhuwal Aged About 62 Years R/o 17,18 Aadarsh Nagar,
In Front of Chopda Petrol Pump, Durg, District Durg (CG)
---- Applicant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. C.B.I. A.C.B.,
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Non-applicant
MCRCA No. 119 of 2021
1. Narayan Sahu S/o Lalit Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o House
No. 626, Kotba Tilgoda Para, Ward No. 11, Pathalgaon,
District Jashpur (CG)
2. Vinay Agrawal S/o Laxminarayan Agrawal Aged About 34
Years R/o AWS 33, Circuit House, District Raigarh (CG)
---- Applicant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. C.B.I. ACB, District Raipur
(CG)
2. Union of India, through Central Bureau of Investigation Raipur
(CG)
---- Non-applicants
2
MCRCA No. 192 of 2021
1. Ram Singh, S/o Shri Bhajpal Singh, Aged About 60 Years R/o
Village Jalmala Police Station Pusour District Raigarh (CG)
2. Amalal Dansena @ Aama Lal Dansena, S/o Shri
Raghunandan Dansena, Aged About 44 Years R/o Village
Baisapalli Post - Navapara, Police Station Kotra Road, District
Raigarh (CG)
3. Babulal Dansena, S/o Shri Dhoba Ram (Wrongly Mentioned
As Ghoba Ram), Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Chhapora,
Police Station Pusour District Raigarh (CG)
4. Rajendra Kumar Sarthi @ Raja Ram, S/o Shri Hari Ram
Sarthi, (Wrongly Mentioned As Rajendra Kumar Sarthi S/o
Raja Ram) Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Regada, Post -
Sambaipuri Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, District -
Raigarh (CG)
---- Applicants
Versus
• Union of India, Through Superintendent of Police, Central
Bureau of Investigation, ACB, District Raipur (CG)
---- Non-applicant
MCRCA No. 246 of 2021
• Rajesh Kumar Sahu @ Rajesh Sahu S/o Shoukilal Sahu,
Aged About 42 Years R/o House No. 31, School Para,
Dumarpali, Usrol, Raigarh District Raigarh (CG)
---- Applicant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. ACB, District Raipur (CG)
2. Union of India Through C.B.I., Raipur (CG)
---- Non-applicants
3
MCRCA No. 368 of 2021
• Deepak Kumar Mali @ Deepak Mali S/o Ramkrishna Mali
Aged About 45 Years R/o House No.116 Old Police Ground
Gaushala Para Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh (CG)
---- Applicant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police
Station C.B.I. A.C.B. Raipur District Raipur (CG)
---- Non-applicant
MCRCA No. 372 of 2021
• Sanjay Kumar Singh S/o Shri Shatrughan Singh Aged About
38 Years R/o Village Dayalpur Mathuapur Kishandaspur
District Bhagalpur (Bihar).
---- Applicant
Versus
• Union of India Through Superintendent of Police Central
Bureau of Investigation ACB District Raipur (CG)
---- Non-applicant
M.Cr.C. (A) No.11/2021
For Applicant : Dr. Shiv K Shrivastava, Advocate
For Non-applicant : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Assistant
Solicitor General
M.Cr.C. (A) No.58/2021
For Applicant : Mr. Vaibahav A Goverdhan, Advocate
For Non-applicant : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Assistant
Solicitor General
M.Cr.C. (A) No.119/2021
For Applicants : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate
For Non-applicant : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Assistant
Solicitor General
M.Cr.C. (A) No.192/2021
For Applicants : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate
For Non-applicant : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Assistant
Solicitor General
M.Cr.C. (A) No.246/2021
For Applicant : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate
For Non-applicant No.1 : Mr. B.P. Banjare, Dy. Govt. Advocate
For Non-applicant No.2 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Assistant
Solicitor General
M.Cr.C. (A) No.368/2021
For Applicant : Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For Non-applicant : Mr. B.P. Banjare, Dy. Govt. Advocate
4
&
M.Cr.C. (A) No.372/2021
For Applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate
For Non-applicant : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Assistant
Solicitor General
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order On Board
24/8/2021
1. As all the above anticipatory bail applications arise out of the
same crime crime, they are being heard together and disposed
of by this common order.
2. Applicants have preferred above applications under Section 438
CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail to them as they apprehend
their arrest in connection with Crime No. RC1242017A0002
dated 24.1.2017 registered at Police Station- CBI, ACB, Raipur
for commission of offence punishable under Sections 419,
120(B), 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)
(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. Case of prosecution in brief is that applicants in above bail
applications in connivance with others and on the strength of
forged documents, got sanctioned loan from the bank officials of
UCO Bank, Raigarh (some of them are applicant herein) and
thereby caused loss of Rs.5 Crores to UCO Bank. On the basis
of written complaint dated 24.1.2017 submitted by the Zonal
Head, UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Telibandha, Raipur, FIR is
registered against applicants. As per allegations, the officials
and employees of bank along with other persons have withdrawn
Kisan Credit Card Loan (KCC) during the period January, 2011 to
October, 2015. In the aforesaid period, loan amount of
Rs.5,24,00,000/- was disbursed to borrowers on the basis of
5
forged documents. Based on the complaint, a case was
registered by CBI, ACB, Raipur. On completion of investigation,
charge sheet was filed on 28.11.2020 before the Court of Special
Judge of Special Court for trial of CBI cases, Raipur. The Court
below concerned issued summons to the applicants upon which
they apprehending their arrest have preferred separate
applications under Section 438 of CrPC before the Court below
concerned for grant of anticipatory bail and the same were
rejected by the Court below.
4. Mr. V.A. Goverdhan, learned counsel for applicant in M.Cr.C. (A)
No.58/2021 would submit that applicant was posted as Senior
Manager in UCO Bank, Raigarh Branch, Raigarh from
30.11.2013 to 27.10.2015. On attaining age of superannuation,
he retired from services on 30.6.2018. In the course of
investigation, applicant participated and co-operated with the
Investigating Agency. After completion of investigation, the
prosecution has filed charge sheet before the Court below
concerned and now custodial interrogation of applicant is not
required. He submits that applicant undertakes to appear before
the Court below on each and every date of hearing and he will
not make any attempt to delay trial. He further argued that
merely the offences alleged against applicant are cognizable and
non-bailable, he should not be arrested, particularly when
investigation is over and custodial interrogation of applicant is not
needed. He further submits that no document is to be seized
6
from the possession of applicant and now applicant has to face
trial as per programme fixed by the trial Court.
He further submits that complaint was lodged in the year
2015, crime was registered in the year 2017 and after completion
of investigation, charge sheet has already been filed before the
competent Court below. Applicant cooperated with CBI during
the course of entire investigation.
He submits that Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision dated
16.8.2021 in Cr.A. No.838/2021 arising out of SLP (Cr)
No.5442/2021, parties being Siddharth vs. State of UP &
another, apart from other issues, has considered the issue with
regard to prayer of grant of anticipatory bail to appellant therein
at the time of filing of charge sheet and held that arrest of
accused before charge sheet is taken on record is not required in
all cases when accused has already joined investigation;
investigation has completed and accused has been roped in
after long time of registration of FIR. He also referred to decision
of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 28.7.2021 rendered in SLP (Cr.)
No.5191/2021 between Satyendra Kumar Antil vs. CBI & anr.
5. Dr. Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate for applicant in M.Cr.C.
(A) No.11/2021 and Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate for
applicants in M.Cr.C. (A) No.372/2021, who were working as
Assistant Manager, have adopted arguments advanced by Mr.
V.A. Goverdhan, Advocate. In addition, they submit that the
Court below rejected anticipatory bail applications of these
applicants observing that their involvement in commission of
7
crime in question is reflecting and benefit of anticipatory bail is to
be granted only in exceptional cases. It was also observed that
applicants have filed applications for grant of anticipatory bail
prior to their appearance in compliance of summons issued by
the trial Court and dismissed bail applications recording that the
applicants have not appeared before the court below even after
issuance of summons. Learned Counsel submit that the
applicants apprehending their arrest pursuant to issuance of
summons have preferred applications under Section 438 of
CrPC before the Court below for grant of anticipatory bail but the
same have been rejected without considering the facts and
circumstances of case, particularly the fact that applicants have
participated and co-operated in the entire investigation and after
completion of investigation, charge sheet has already been filed.
6. Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, learned counsel for applicants in M.Cr.C.
(A) No.192/2021 submits that these applicants are farmers in
whose name KCC loan was sanctioned. They have also
participated in the investigation. Hence, they may be enlarged on
anticipatory bail.
7. While adopting arguments advanced by Mr. V.A. Goverdhan,
Advocate in M.Cr.C. (A) No.58/2021, Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey
and Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocates for respective applicants
in M.Cr.C. (A) Nos.368/2021, 119/2021 & 246/2021 contended
that as charge sheet has already been filed and these applicants
have co-operated in the entire investigation, there is no
8
apprehension of absconding of applicants. hence they may be
enlarged on anticipatory bail.
8. Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Assistant Solicitor General for non-
applicant CBI / ACB opposes the submissions made by learned
counsel for respective applicants and submits that there are
serious allegations against applicants. He submits that these
anticipatory bail applications of applicants are not maintainable
for the reason that there is no apprehension of arrest of
applicants. The applicants in connivance with others got
disbursed KCC loan amount of Rs.5,24,00,000/- on the strength
of forged documents and thereby caused huge loss to UCO
Bank, Raigarh. The trial Court has only issued summons to the
applicants and not warrant of arrest, however, instead of
appearing before the trial Court they have chosen to file separate
applications under Section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory
bail to them. He further submits that applicants are trying to
delay the process of trial by not following direction issued by the
trial Court, hence they are not entitled to benefit under Section
438 of CrPC. He would further submit that decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Siddharth (supra), which has been
relied upon by learned counsel for applicants, is on different
footing. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not
considering the issue with regard to grant of anticipatory bail to
appellant therein after filing of charge sheet, but the issue for
consideration was whether arrest at the time of filing of charge
sheet is necessary or not. Hence, aforementioned decision of
9
Hon'ble Supreme Court is of no help to the applicants. However,
learned counsel for respondent does not dispute the fact that
there is no allegation against any of the applicants that they have
not cooperated in the investigation and that after investigation,
custodial interrogation is not required, charge sheet has been
filed before the court below concerned.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record placed before me.
10. From perusal of pleadings it is apparent that period of
commission of offence is from July, 2011 to October, 2015.
Written complaint was lodged by the Zonal Head of UCO Bank
on 24.1.2017 based on which FIR was registered by the non-
applicant CBI. During the course of investigation, applicants
have not been arrested and they co-operated with the
Investigating Agency in investigation.
11. So far as submission of learned counsel for respondent that only
summons have been issued to applicants and not arrest warrant,
as such, these anticipatory bail applications are not maintainable
is concerned, perusal of bail rejection orders would show that the
Court below has observed in the order that involvement of
applicants in commission of crime is reflecting. An application
under Section 438 of CrPC would be maintainable if a person
complains off apprehension of arrest and approaches for orders
based on concrete facts relatable to one or other specific
offence. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sushila Agrawal vs.
State (NCT of Delhi) and another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1
has considered this issue and referring to its earlier decision in
Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia vs State of Punjab reported in (2011)
1 SCC 694 has held thus:-
"92.1.(1) Consistent with the judgment in Gurubaksh
Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab 1, when a person
complains of apprehension of arrest and approaches for
order, the application should be based on concrete
facts (and not vague or general allegations) relatable
to one or other specific offence. The application
seeking anticipatory bail should contain bare essential
facts relating to the offence, and why the applicant
reasonably apprehends arrest, as well as his side of the
story. These are essential for the court which should
consider his application, to evaluate the threat or
apprehension, its gravity or seriousness and the
appropriateness of any condition that may have to be
imposed. It is not essential that an application should
be moved only after an FIR is filed; it can be moved
earlier, so long as the facts are clear and there is
reasonable basis for apprehending arrest."
12. In the light of above ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
observation made by trial Court in bail rejection order that prima
facie commission of offence by applicants is reflecting and
anticipatory bail should be granted only in exceptional
circumstance, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is
no force in the objection raised by learned counsel for
respondent with respect to maintainability of these bail
application. There is prima facie material to show that applicants
have reasonable apprehension of their arrest.
13. As regards the submission of learned for respondent that the
order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Siddharth
(supra) has no application in the facts of present case as it does
not deal with grant of anticipatory bail, perusal of opening
paragraph of the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of Siddharth (supra) would show that one of the issues
under consideration was 'whether the anticipatory bail
application of the appellant ought to have been allowed"
Thus it is apparent that Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered
the issue with regard to grant of anticipatory bail to appellant
therein. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further considered
necessity of arrest of accused therein even after completion of
investigation at the time of filing of charge and held thus:-
".......We are in agreement with the aforesaid view of the
High Courts and would like to give our imprimatur to the
said judicial view. It has rightly been observed on
consideration of Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. that it does
not impose an obligation on the Officer-in-charge to
arrest each and every accused at the time of filing of
the charge sheet. We have, in fact, come across cases
where the accused has cooperated with the
investigation throughout and yon the charge sheet
being filed non-bailable warrants have been issued for
his production premised on the requirement that there is
an obligation to arrest and produce him before the
court. We are of the view that if the Investigating Officer
does not believe that the accused will abscond or
disobey summons he/she is not required to be
produced in custody. The word "custody" appearing in
Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. does not contemplate either
police or judicial custody but it merely connotes the
presentation of the accused by the Investigating Officer
before the court while filing the charge sheet.
We may note that personal liberty is an important
aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to
arrest an accused during investigation arise when the
custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a
heinous crime or where there is a possibility of
influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond.
Merely because an arrest can be made because it is
lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A
distinction must be made between the existence of the
power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If
arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to
the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the
Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the
accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in
fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation we
fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on
the officer to arrest the accused.
We are, in fact, faced with a situation where contrary
to the observations in Joginder Kumar's case how a
police officer has to deal with a scenario of arrest, the
trial courts are stated to be insisting on the arrest of an
accused as a pre-requisite formality to take the
chargesheet on record in view of the provisions of
Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. We consider such a course
misplaced and contrary to the very intent of Section 170
of the Cr.P.C.
In the present case when the appellant has joined
the investigation, investigation has completed and he
has been roped in after seven years of registration of
the FIR, we can think of no reason why at this stage he
must be arrested before the charge sheet is taken on
record. We may note that learned counsel for the
appellant has already being stated issued the before us
that appellant will on summons put the appearance
before the trial court........"
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above order has considered
requirement of arrest of accused persons at the time of filing of
charge sheet and has concluded that no reason as to why at this
stage he must be arrested before charge sheet is taken on
record.
14. If the facts of present case are considered in the light of
aforementioned order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
offence said to have been committed from July, 2011 to October,
2015; complaint was lodged on 24.1.2017; FIR was registered in
the year 2017 and after completion of investigation, charge sheet
was filed on 20.11.2020 i.e. after about more than three years,
from the date of registration of FIR, the applicants have
participated in investigation. Learned counsel for the respective
applicants have also submitted that the applicants have not
appeared before the trial Court after issuance of summons only
on account of apprehension of their arrest. However, they
undertake to appear before the Court below on each and every
date of hearing as fixed by the trial Court till final disposal of trial.
15. In the said circumstances, I am of the opinion that present are fit
cases where the applicants deserve to be enlarged on
anticipatory bail. Accordingly, all the applications are allowed
and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicants in
connection with crime in question, they shall be released on
anticipatory bail by the officer arresting them on their executing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety in
the like sum to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.
Applicants shall also abide by following conditions:
(i) that they shall make themselves available for
interrogation before Investigating Officer as and when
required;
(ii) that they shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with facts of case so as to dissuade him/her from
disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer;
(iii) that they shall not act, in any manner, which will be
prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and
(iv) that they shall appear before the trial Court on each &
every date given to him by said Court till disposal of trial.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
roshan/-
