Allahabad High Court
Vipin Kumar Lekhpal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 May, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:115439 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4595 of 2023 Applicant :- Vipin Kumar Lekhpal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kakkar,Anant Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the material available on record.
2. This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Vipin Kumar Lekhpal in connection with Case Crime No. 341 of 2010 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, P.S. Mandawar, District- Bijnor.
3. It is alleged in the FIR that the applicant working as Lekhpal of the village was involved in the conspiracy in preparing forged Ration Cards and APL Cards and thereby misappropriating the government funds. FIR was lodged and investigation started. After investigation, however, no charge sheet was filed against the present accused applicant and other co-accused Sita Ram but during course of trial on the basis of statement of P.W.1, the accused applicant along with co-accused Sita Ram was summoned to face the trial under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. The said order was challenged before this Court in Criminal Revision No. 3697 of 2013 by the co-accused Sita Ram and the proceedings of the trial Court were stayed. However, the said revision was dismissed as infructuous by this Court vide order dated 2.02.2023 and now non-bailable warrant against the accused applicant is operative.
4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that only on the basis of surmise and conjectures the present accused applicant has been summoned. No substantive evidence is existing against the accused applicant in this case and that is why during course of investigation no credible evidence was found by the I.O. against the accused applicant and no charge sheet was submitted against him. It is further submitted that during course of investigation the accused applicant has been cooperative with the I.O. of the case. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. It is further submitted that the applicant is a government servant and working as Lekhpal. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.
5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that grant of anticipatory bail at this stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused but he could not dispute this fact that during the investigation no evidence was found against the present accused applicant.
6. It reveals from the perusal of the record that no process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant till date and he has cooperated during the investigation.
7. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.
8. It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.
9. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.
10. Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till conclusion of trial in the matter.
11. The anticipatory bail application is allowed accordingly.
12. In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-
i. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
ii. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
iii. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
iv. The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.
13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicant in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 24.5.2023 Fhd