Allahabad High Court
Ram Chandra vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 March, 2023
Author: Rajiv Gupta
Bench: Rajiv Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 49 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5194 of 2022 Applicant :- Ram Chandra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Tripathi,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Counter and rejoinder affidavits have already been exchanged.
Heard Shri Anil Tiwari, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Arun Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Present application has been filed by the applicant, namely, Ram Chandra invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. stating therein that he reasonably apprehends his arrest by the police for having committed a non-bailable offence registered vide Case Crime No. 337 of 2008, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 406, 409, 109 IPC and Section 13(1)(d)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Cantt., District Gorakhpur.
Perusal of the record shows that the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant has already been rejected by the court below vide its order dated 19.05.2022.
It is germane to point out here that prior notice of this anticipatory bail application was served in the Office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that FIR was lodged on 19.02.2008 and the investigation continued for a period of more than twelve years and charge-sheet was submitted on 18.03.2020. On the basis of which cognizance was taken on 9.4.2021.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has not been convicted by any court of law. He has further submitted that the applicant during the course of investigation had rendered all co-operation and assistance to the investigative authorities in carrying out the investigation. He has further submitted that there is no possibility of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and he will also cooperate in the trial by all means.
Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed implicit reliance upon the decisions reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and another, (1994) 4 SCC 260 Joginder Kumar vs State of U.P. and others, (2021) 10 SCC 773 Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another and in Criminal Appeal No. 929 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 5234 of 2021) Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. Through Director.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant has cooperated in the process of investigation and on being released on interim bail, which has been extended from time to time, he has fully cooperated in the progress of trial. There is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses as such he be released on regular bail.
Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for regular bail and has submitted that looking to the seriousness and gravity of the offence, the applicant is not entitled for indulgence of this Court, for being released on regular bail.
Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and from the perusal of the record, it is evident that F.I.R. in the instant case was lodged in the year 2008 and the process of investigation continued for a period of more than twelve years when the charge sheet was submitted, on the basis of which ultimately cognizance was taken on 9.4.2021. During this period, the applicant has regularly cooperated and provided all assistance to the investigating authorities in carrying out the investigation. Even after submission of the charge sheet and being released on interim bail, he had fully cooperated in the process of trial. There is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses, as such I am of the view that primafacie the applicant has made out a case for regular bail till the conclusion of trial.
Let the applicant Ram Chandra be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-
1. The applicant shall continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.
2. The applicant shall not tamper with the witnesses.
3. The applicant shall not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.
It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.
The bail application is accordingly allowed.
Order Date :- 20.3.2023 R