Allahabad High Court
Shashi Prakash vs State Of U.P. on 29 August, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:174067 Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6476 of 2023 Applicant :- Shashi Prakash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Patsy David,Sagar Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Shashi Prakash seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 476 of 2017, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Allahabad.
2. Heard Shri Sagar Mehrotra, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Rupak Chaubey, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his 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 the Lucknow Diocesan Trust Association (in short the 'LDTA') was incorporated as a Company Limited under the Companies Act and its registered office is situated at Prayagraj whereas its corporate office is at Hathras. It is also submitted that the said LDTA has its Articles of Association and all the decisions with respect to the land owned by the LDTA is taken by the Committee and the applicant had no actual decision making power. It is also submitted that the said LDTA manages the land vested with it while Diocese Education Board (in short the 'DEB') manages the educational institutions established by the Diocese of Lucknow. The applicant was appointed as the Secretary of the LDTA on 16.2.2017 and the Girls Wing of Bishop Johnson School and College was established prior to the joining of the applicant as Secretary of LDTA, therefore, he had no role in allotment of land to the Girls Wing of Bishop Johnson School and College. It is also submitted that the applicant had resigned on 10.11.2018 from the said post. Applicant is not involved in any of the activities either of the School or the Society managing the Diocese Education Board. It is further submitted that the applicant has not made any embezzlement in respect of the fees of the students of Girls Wing of the said College. It is further submitted that the investigation of the case has been completed and charge sheet has been filed and the applicant has been cooperative during course of investigation. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that applicant was the Secretary of LDTA and on the basis of false and fabricated documents on the affiliation of Bishop Johnson College, Civil Lines, Prayagraj, he alongwith other co-accused persons was fraudulently running Bishop Johnson Girls Wing, Katra and by illegally appointing Yojna Lal as Principal of Girls Wing he embezzled fees amounting to Rupees Thirteen Crores of the students of the Girls Wing of the said College in criminal conspiracy with co-accused persons. It is also submitted that the Bishop Johnson Girls Wing is not a recognized institution, as no school affiliated to ICSE Board can open its branch. Applicant has played active role in commission of the alleged crime and sufficient evidence has been collected against the applicant during course of investigation. It is also submitted that the applicant was working in dual capacity and he was ex-officio member as well. He had been working in the institution during the relevant period and it has also been vehemently submitted that the bank account was not opened in the name of the college rather it was in personal names and ample evidence to this effect has been collected during investigation. It is lastly submitted that since the matter may involve several other aspects of fraudulent acts, custodial interrogation is required in the matter.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.
6. In this matter, it has been found against the applicant during investigation that he alongwith other co-accused persons was completely involved in fraudulently running Bishop Johnson Girls Wing, Katra, Prayagraj and also for recognition / affiliation of the same with Bishop Johnson College, Civil Lines, Prayagraj on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. It is also found that the future of the thousands of students was jeopardized by illegally appointing Yojna Lal as Principal of Girls Wing and they also embezzled about Rupees Thirteen Crores collected as fees of the students of the Girls Wing of the said College. Moreover, it is also found during investigation that the Bishop Johnson Girls Wing is not a recognized institution, as no school affiliated to ICSE Board can open its branch and these facts are also supported with the report of the Zila Basik Shiksha Adhikari. From the perusal of the record it reveals that after investigation charge sheet has been submitted in the matter and ample and sufficient evidence has been collected against the applicant during course of the investigation by the Investigating Officer.
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.
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, likelihood 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.
8. Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant, all attending facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that allegations are serious in nature, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant. Prayer made in the application is refused.
9. The application is rejected.
Order Date :- 29.8.2023 safi