Allahabad High Court
Deepak Verma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 August, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:163341 Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2478 of 2023 Applicant :- Deepak Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Singh,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jagdish Singh,R P Rajan Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the material available on record.
2. Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Deepak Verma in Complaint Case No.4820 of 2022, under Sections 467, 419, 420 & 120B I.P.C, Police Station - Sarnath, District - Varanasi.
3. It has been submitted 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. Charge sheet in the matter has been submitted. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.
4. It is further submitted that earlier, interim protection was granted to the accused applicant by this Court vide order dated 24.03.2023 but the same has not been misused by him.
5. A specific plea has been taken by the learned counsel for the informant that since earlier an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.17972 of 2022 filed by the applicant, was already dismissed by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.09.2022, a subsequent application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail is not maintainable and in this regard, reliance has been placed upon the case of Shivam Vs. State of U.P. and another; Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail No.2110 of 2021, decided by the order dated 05.04.2021, but the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamlesh and another Vs. Sate of Rajasthan and another, 2019 SCC Online SC 1822 has held like this:-
"The High Court vide order dated 05.02.2018 rejected the application for anticipatory bail only on the ground that petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying for quashing of FIR, has already been rejected.
We are of the view that the order of the High Court cannot be sustained. High Court ought to have considered the application on merits. The fact that petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed for quashing was not conclusive and could not be the reason for rejecting the application."
6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
7. It appears from perusal of record that the present accused-applicant was the Bank Manager, who has sanctioned a car loan, wherein the complainant Shiv Shankar Prasad Rai and Manasi Rai son of the co-accused Uma Shankar Rai were made co-borrower and borrower respectively. It is alleged that forged signatures have been obtained on the loan papers of the borrower and co-borrower and they have never signed on any paper regarding the bank loan for the purchase of four wheeler vehicle. From the allegations of the complaint it also appears that there is a family dispute between the parties and the present accused-applicant is not a family member of the parties. The criminal case has been lodged on the basis of private complaint and summoning order dated 11.3.2022 was passed on the basis thereon. It also reveals from perusal of the record that from the aforesaid loan a four wheeler Swift Dzire VXI Car No.UP 65/DV/5841 was purchased.
8. Hence, there is no force in the contention made by the learned counsel for the informant.
9. Although the charge sheet has been submitted in this matter but 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.
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.
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.
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 they have passport, the same shall be deposited by him 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 :- 11.8.2023 Shivangi