Sanjeev Sharma Alias Sonu vs State Of Uttarakhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3378 UK

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

        First Bail Application No. 1762 of 2022

Sanjeev Sharma alias Sonu                    ........Applicant

                          Versus

State of Uttarakhand                        ........Respondent

Present:-
      Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya and Mr. Sachin Kumar Sharma,
      Advocates for the applicant.
      Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. with Ms. Sonika Khulbe, Brief
      Holder for the State.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Applicant Sanjeev Sharma alias Sonu is in

judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No.513 of 2022,

under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC, Police Station

Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. He has sought his

release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, the applicant along with

co-accused took huge amount from the informant in the

name of securing job to his nephew. There are details of

the account and the payment in the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would

submit that, in the instant case, arrest has been made

without complying with the provisions of Sections 41 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the

Code"), which entitles the applicant to bail in view of the

judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central

Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine

SC 825.

5. It is also submitted that, in fact, the FIR has

been lodged of the transaction pertaining to the year

2019, which was the business transaction between the

informant and the applicant and in a very hurry manner,

the applicant has been arrested without there been any

evidence.

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel

would submit that in the instant case, arrest has been

made after following the provisions of Section 41 of the

Code. The Investigating Officer has recorded in his case

diary that in case applicant if not arrested, there are

chances of committing him any further offence and it is a

case of criminal conspiracy also, which has been taken

into note by the Investigating Officer.

7. In fact, learned counsel for the applicant since

inception has taken a stand that in the instant case,

arrest has been made in non-compliance of Section 41 of

the Code. On 17.10.2022, this Court requested the

Investigating Officer to join the proceedings, so that the

Court may be helped to appreciate, as to the manner in

which, the applicant is arrested.

8. Today, learned State counsel has, in fact,

produced a report for the perusal of the Court submitted

by the Investigating Officer, which records that the

Investigating Officer had recorded the reasons of arrest as

per Section 41 of the Code.

9. Mr. Vipin Kumar, Sub-Inspector, Investigating

Officer has joined the proceedings through video

conferencing. He had read over the contents for justifying

the arrest of the applicant. According to the Investigating

Officer, offence being non-bailable committed under

conspiracy and there had been chances of the applicant

committing any further offence, he arrested the applicant.

10. It is not a case of non-compliance of the

provisions of the Code before effecting arrest. The

applicant has taken money from the informant in the

name of securing job to someone. It is really very serious

offence. In a country where billions of people are

unemployed, such an action would erode not only faith on

the system, but would tend to pollute the administration

of the system as a whole. Therefore, there is no ground to

enlarge the applicant on bail and the bail application

deserves to be rejected.

11. The bail application is rejected.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 18.10.2022 Sanjay