Allahabad High Court
Gurpreet Singh vs C.B.I New Delhi on 29 July, 2022
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 91 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17638 of 2022 Applicant :- Gurpreet Singh Opposite Party :- C.B.I New Delhi Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar,Ronak Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Ronak Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sanjay Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party/Central Bureau of Investigation and perused the material on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant has filed a synopsis/dates & events which is taken on record. The copy of the same has been served upon learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Gurpreet Singh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. RC2202018E0016 under Section 120-B read with Section 420 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act registered at P.S. C.B.I. EO-II, EOU-V, New Delhi.
The first information report of the present case was lodged on 28.12.2018 against seven named persons, M/s. Fahrenheit Motors Pvt. Ltd. and mentioning of unknown other public servants and private persons on a written complaint dated 27.12.2018 given by Sri Pawan Kumar Gaur, Regional Head of the Union of Bank of India, Meerut. The first information report states of fraud being committed of Rs.3.12 crores by M/s. Fahrenheit Motors Pvt. Ltd., its Directors and guarantors with Union Bank of India, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad. The named accused therein are Kunal Ramchandani, Mrs. Meghna Choksey, Sumit Nanda, Balbeer Singh, Satish Gupta, Sanjeev Gupta and Vivek Aggarwal. The status of the said accused are that Kunal Ramchandani, Mrs. Meghna Choksey and Sumit Nanda are the Directors of the Company, Balbeer Singh is the guarantor, Satish Kumar Gupta and Sanjeev Gupta are the empanelled lawyers of the bank and Vivek Aggarwal is the valuer attached to the bank.
The allegations in the first information report are that M/s. Fahrenheit Motors Pvt. Ltd. is a private limited company and was authorized dealer of vehicles and was also providing after sale service since 2014. The company was availing cash credit limit of Rs.800 Lacs and term loan of Rs.200 Lacs since 27.10.2014 with margin of 20% and 25% respectively. The credit facility was renewed from time to time and the limit was changed as per the requirement. The limit was reduced to Rs.280 Lacs on 25.9.2017 and the term loan was renewed at Rs.180 Lacs. As co-lateral security, equitable mortgage of freehold residential house in the name of Balbeer Singh situated in New Delhi having market value of 757.83 Lacs was given. The same was valued by the firm of Vivek Aggarwal. It is further alleged that the borrower company, its Directors and Guarantor with an intention to defraud the bank availed the credit facility. The Directors are fully responsible for the day to day business activity and management of the company. The company initially was not having Sumit Nanda as its Director but on 2.11.2015 without intimation to the bank, Mrs. Meghna Choksey was replaced with Sumit Nanda by change of constitution in its Board. The Advocates Satish Kumar Gupta and Sanjeev Gupta have given title report/search report without proper verification of the revenue and municipal record. A legal report/non encumbrance certificate dated 27.10.2014 and 20.10.2014 was given stating that Balbeer Singh has a clear marketable title to the said property. The said account turned to Non Performing Asset (NPA) and then the bank got a second title verification report dated 27.6.2018 from Sri Ravi Kumar, Advocate from which it transpires that Balbeer Singh was never the owner of the mortgaged property. The mortgage was created by the guarantor by depositing forged title deed. As per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, the borrower company was to hold stocks and other hypothecated assets in its custody in trust for the bank and to submit genuine stock statement at regular intervals. It was to route all the sale transaction through cash credit account of the bank. The stock statement report of the month of February, 2017 stated the value of the stock as Rs.906.57 Lacs and the outstanding balance in the cash credit account was Rs.606.09 Lacs at that time. The report of the Branch Manager dated 27.5.2017 of stock verification was given in which no stock was found. The Chief Manager/Branch Manager inspected and gave a report dated 21.11.2017 that no stock was found. The bank tried to contact the borrower and the guarantor but all in vain as they were running away from repaying the loan to the bank. The turnover of the company is very poor and the party was not routing transactions through CC Account. It is further alleged that the same shows that the sale proceeds were diverted for wrongful gain and causing wrongful loss to the bank with an intention to defraud the bank. The valuation report of the property prepared by Vivek Aggarwal dated 18.10.2014 disclosed the value of the property as Rs.757.83 Lacs. The account turned into NPA on 31.3.2018, after which the valuation of the property was again obtained through another company on 01.06.2018 which gave its market value as Rs.497 Lacs. The same would show that the first valuer had inflated the value of the property to cover the loan. The second report of Sri Ravi Kumar, Advocate gave the position of the property in detail and it made clear that Balbeer Singh was never the owner of the said property. The CC limit was fully utilized but no stocks were materialized. The account was classified as NPA with an outstanding of Rs.3.12 Lacs. The borrower company, its Directors, Guarantor, Valuer and Advocates have in connivance with each other defrauded the bank. The bank has suffered a lost of Rs.3.12 crore. The first information was thus lodged.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is not named in the first information report. He has been implicated in the matter during investigation. It is argued that a charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted on 31.10.2021 in which the applicant is named as an accused along with 13 other persons and M/s. Fahrenheit Motors Pvt. Ltd. They are Kunal Ramchandani, Mrs. Meghna Choksey, Gurdeep Singh Plaha alias Balbeer Singh, Smt. Rupneek Kaur Matta, Pankaj Sharma, Bhupender Sharma, Nitin Kumar Gaur, Navneet Singh, Amit Kumar Sharma, Anil Kumar Rawat, Raj Kumar Agarwal and Bhawana Sharma. It is further argued that there is no substantive evidence to establish the element of conspiracy between the applicant and other accused persons. It is further argued that the two lawyers being Satish Kumar Gupta and Sanjeev Gupta along with Sumit Nanda, a subsequently inducted Director and Vivek Aggarwal, who is the valuer, have been exonerated from the matter and have not been charge-sheeted. The trial court vide its order dated 29.11.2021 has taken cognizance upon the charge-sheet and summoned the applicant and other accused persons to face trial. Learned has further argued that the applicant is not the borrower, the guarantor or the signatory of any document. It is submitted that Smt. Rupneek Kaur Matta, co-accused preferred a Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 3596 of 2022 before the Apex Court in which vide order dated 20.4.2022 an interim order was in her favour. Subsequently, Kunal Ramchandani filed an Anticipatory Bail Application before this Court in which vide order dated 25.4.2022 an interim order has been passed in his favour. Further, Mrs. Meghna Choksey also filed an Anticipatory Bail Application in which vide order dated 25.4.2022 an interim order was passed. Pankaj Sharma also filed an Anticipatory Bail Application in which also vide order dated 25.4.2022 an interim order was passed and lastly, Bhupender Sharma filed Anticipatory Bail Application in which also an interim order was passed on 11.5.2022. It is argued that Anil Kumar Rawat filed Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9679 of 2021 before the Apex Court in which vide order dated 4.5.2022 he has been granted bail. Subsequently, vide order dated 11.5.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, anticipatory bail of Kunal Ramchandani, Mrs. Meghna Choksey and Bhupender Sharma was disposed of and they were directed to be released on bail. Amit Kumar Sharma also applied for anticipatory bail before this Court who was also granted bail vide order dated 13.5.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Navneet Singh filed an Anticipatory Bail Application before this Court in which also vide order dated 16.5.2022 he was granted bail. The said orders have been placed before the Court, which are Annexure-SA-1, SA-2 & SA-3 to the supplementary affidavit dated 31.5.2022. It is argued that since co-accused have been granted bail, who are named in the first information report, the case of the applicant stands on a better footing as the applicant was not named in the first information report and his complicity in the matter has surfaced during investigation. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that during investigation, the Central Bureau of Investigation did not arrest the applicant and even did not make any effort to arrest the applicant and he fully co-operated during investigation, the bail application deserves to be allowed. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that since the charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted on which the court concerned has taken cognizance and summoned the accused and as such, the investigation has concluded and thus, there are no chances of the applicant tampering with evidence or threatening the witnesses. While placing para 28 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it is argued that the applicant has no criminal history. It is further argued that there is no recovery of any money from the possession of the applicant. The applicant is neither a bank official nor in any manner involved in the working of the company. It is argued that as a matter of fact, Jasbir Singh Matta, who is the father of the applicant, is the actual owner of the said property who is living their continuously since 2004, after purchaing its from Sanjay Kumar and Ravindra Kumar. As a matter of fact, the applicant and his father were themselves cheated by the co-accused persons by preparing forged documents of their property. It is further argued that the applicant was not beneficiary in any manner of the said cash credit limit and term loan facility as extended by the bank. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is in jail since 24.03.2022.
Per contra, learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant was actively involved in the conspiracy hatched by the named accused persons for procuring cash credit limit and term loan from the bank due to which the bank has suffered a loss of Rs.3.12 crores. It is further argued that charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted in which active participation of the applicant is shown after which the applicant has been summoned by the concerned trial court. It is also argued that the case of co-accused persons is distinguishable from that of the applicant and as such, the applicant cannot be extended the benefit of orders of bail of co-accused. His bail application may be rejected.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is apparent that the applicant is not named in the first information report. His complicity in the present case has surfaced during investigation. The CBI has not arrested the applicant during the entire period of investigation. There is no allegation of non-co-operation by the applicant during investigation. In the present case, the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 3596 of 2022(Rupneek Kaur Matta vs. Central Bureau of Investigation) passed an order on 20.04.2022. The same is quoted hereinbelow :
"Applications for exemption from filing C/C of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T. are allowed.
Issue notice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner has cooperated during the investigation and thus the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Siddharth vs. The State of U.P. & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 838/2021 decided on 16.08.2021, (2022) 1 SCC 676.
In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner be not arrested but shall appear before the trial court which will consider the effect of the aforesaid judgment.
Tag with the connected matters, including SLP(Crl.) Nos. 9679/2021 and 847/2022 which are stated to be tentatively listed on 04.05.2022.
Those matter may not be deleted from the list."
Subsequently, the said SLP along with two other tagged SLPs was decided vide order dated 4.5.2022 passed by the Apex Court. The said order is quoted below :
"Leave granted.
On hearing learned counsel for parties we may note that the charge-sheet(s) in these cases have been filed and cognizance has been taken.
We had restrained the arrest on the continued assurance of cooperation in investigation as the appellants had joined investigation and no need was ever felt to take them into custody. The position, in anycase now, stands enunciated in the reportable order of this Court dated 16.8.2021 in Crl. Appeal No. 838 of 2021 titled "Siddharth vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.", that a person need not be produced in custody on charge-sheet being filed.
In view of the aforesaid, in the event of arrest, the appellants be admitted to bail on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Criminal appeals stand disposed of."
Kunal Ramchandani filed Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 1224 of 2022 (Kunal Ramchandani vs. C.B.I. & Another) before this Court in which an interim order was passed on 25.4.2022 by a co-ordinate Bench. The same is quoted hereinbelow :
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, Shri Gyan Prakash, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the CBI.
Present application has been filed by the applicant, namely, Kunal Ramchandani 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 FIR No. RC 2202018 E 0016, dated 20.12.2018, under Section 120-B r/w 420 IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station CBI, EOU-V, EO-II, New Delhi.
Perusal of the record shows that the prayer for anticipatory bail has already been rejected by the court below vide its order dated 05.01.2022.' Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due ulterior motive.
Learned counsel for the applicant has next drawn the attention of the Court to the order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 3596 of 2022, (Rupneek Kaur Matta Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation), by which, petitioner has been directed not to be arrested but shall appear before the trial court.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant is also a co-accused in the instant case alongwith Rupneek Kaur Matta and has co-operated during the course of investigation and as such, he may not be arrested during the course of trial.
Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the CBI has vehemently opposed the said prayer and has submitted that CBI, after concluding the investigation and finding ample evidence, has submitted charge-sheet against the applicant. Pursuant to the said charge-sheet, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence vide order dated 29.11.2021 and summoned the applicant to face trial, however, applicant instead of appearing before the court below to face trial, has filed present anticipatory bail application and now, non-bailable warrants have also been issued against him and as such, he is not entitled to any relief by this Court.
Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the order dated 20.04.2022 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 3596 of 2022 (Rupneek Kaur Matta Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation), it is directed that the applicant shall not be arrested but appear before the trial court, which will consider the effect of the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 838 of 2021, Siddharth Vs. The State of U.P. and another reported in (2022) 1 SCC 676 decided on 16.08.2021.
List this case on 11.05.2022."
The said case was then finally disposed of vide order dated 11.5.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The order is quoted below :
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Gyan Prakash, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the CBI.
Learned counsel for the applicant has filed an order dated 04.05.2022 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court today in Court, which is taken on record and shall form part of this anticipatory bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicant has brought on record an order dated 04.05.2022 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 731 of 2022 (Anil Kumar Rawat Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation), wherein it has been observed that :-
"We had restrained the arrest on the continued assurance of cooperation in investigation as the appellants had joined investigation and no need was ever felt to take them into custody. The position, in any case now, stands enunciated in the reportable order of this Court dated 16.08.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 838 of 2021 titled "Siddharth Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another", that a person need not be produced in custody on charge-sheet being filed.
In view of the aforesaid, in the event of arrest, the appellants be admitted to bail on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Criminal appeals stand disposed of."
Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that present applicant is the co-accused of the said case and stands on the same footing.
In view of the aforesaid order, in case the applicant is arrested, he be released on bail on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court.
In view of the above, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of."
Mrs. Meghna Choksey filed Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 1304 of 2022 (Mrs. Meghna Choksey vs. C.B.I. & Another) before this Court in which an interim order was passed on 25.4.2022 by a co-ordinate Bench. The same is quoted hereinbelow :
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, Shri Gyan Prakash, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the CBI.
Present application has been filed by the applicant, namely, Meghna Choksey invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. stating therein that she reasonably apprehends her arrest by the police for having committed a non-bailable offence registered vide FIR No. RC 2202018 E 0016, dated 20.12.2018, under Section 120-B r/w 420 IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station CBI, EOU-V, EO-II, New Delhi.
Perusal of the record shows that the prayer for anticipatory bail has already been rejected by the court below vide its order dated 05.01.2022.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due ulterior motive.
Learned counsel for the applicant has next drawn the attention of the Court to the order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 3596 of 2022, (Rupneek Kaur Matta Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation), by which, petitioner has been directed not to be arrested but shall appear before the trial court.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant is also a co-accused in the instant case alongwith Rupneek Kaur Matta and has co-operated during the course of investigation and as such, she may not be arrested during the course of trial.
Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the CBI has vehemently opposed the said prayer and has submitted that CBI, after concluding the investigation and finding ample evidence, has submitted charge-sheet against the applicant. Pursuant to the said charge-sheet, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence vide order dated 29.11.2021 and summoned the applicant to face trial, however, applicant instead of appearing before the court below to face trial, has filed present anticipatory bail application and now, non-bailable warrants have also been issued against her and as such, she is not entitled to any relief by this Court.
Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the order dated 20.04.2022 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 3596 of 2022 (Rupneek Kaur Matta Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation), it is directed that the applicant shall not be arrested but appear before the trial court, which will consider the effect of the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 838 of 2021, Siddharth Vs. The State of U.P. and another reported in (2022) 1 SCC 676 decided on 16.08.2021.
List this case on 11.05.2022."
The said case was then finally disposed of vide order dated 11.5.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The order is quoted hereinbelow :
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Gyan Prakash, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the CBI.
Learned counsel for the applicant has filed an order dated 04.05.2022 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court today in Court, which is taken on record and shall form part of this anticipatory bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicant has brought on record an order dated 04.05.2022 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 731 of 2022 (Anil Kumar Rawat Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation), wherein it has been observed that :-
"We had restrained the arrest on the continued assurance of cooperation in investigation as the appellants had joined investigation and no need was ever felt to take them into custody. The position, in any case now, stands enunciated in the reportable order of this Court dated 16.08.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 838 of 2021 titled "Siddharth Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another", that a person need not be produced in custody on charge-sheet being filed.
In view of the aforesaid, in the event of arrest, the appellants be admitted to bail on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Criminal appeals stand disposed of."
Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that present applicant is the co-accused of the said case and stands on the same footing.
In view of the aforesaid order, in case the applicant is arrested, she be released on bail on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court.
In view of the above, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of."
Pankaj Sharma filed Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 892 of 2022 (Pankaj Sharma vs. State of U.P. & Another) before this Court in which an interim order was passed on 25.4.2022 by a co-ordinate Bench. The same is quoted hereinbelow :
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, Shri Gyan Prakash, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the CBI.
Present application has been filed by the applicant, namely, Pankaj Sharma 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 FIR No. RC 2202018 E 0016, dated 20.12.2018, under Section 120-B r/w 420 IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station CBI, EOU-V, EO-II, New Delhi.
Perusal of the record shows that the prayer for anticipatory bail has already been rejected by the court below vide its order dated 07.01.2022.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due ulterior motive.
Learned counsel for the applicant has next drawn the attention of the Court to the order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 3596 of 2022, (Rupneek Kaur Matta Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation), by which, petitioner has been directed not to be arrested but shall appear before the trial court.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant is also a co-accused in the instant case alongwith Rupneek Kaur Matta and has co-operated during the course of investigation and as such, he may not be arrested during the course of trial.
Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the CBI has vehemently opposed the said prayer and has submitted that CBI, after concluding the investigation and finding ample evidence, has submitted charge-sheet against the applicant. Pursuant to the said charge-sheet, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence vide order dated 29.11.2021 and summoned the applicant to face trial, however, applicant instead of appearing before the court below to face trial, has filed present anticipatory bail application and now, non-bailable warrants have also been issued against him and as such, he is not entitled to any relief by this Court.
Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the order dated 20.04.2022 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 3596 of 2022 (Rupneek Kaur Matta Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation), it is directed that the applicant shall not be arrested but appear before the trial court, which will consider the effect of the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 838 of 2021, Siddharth Vs. The State of U.P. and another reported in (2022) 1 SCC 676 decided on 16.08.2021.
List this case on 11.05.2022."
The said case was then finally disposed of vide order dated 11.5.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The order is quoted below :
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, Shri Gyan Prakash, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the CBI.
Learned counsel for the applicant has filed an order dated 04.05.2022 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court today in Court, which is taken on record and shall form part of this anticipatory bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicant has brought on record an order dated 04.05.2022 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 731 of 2022 (Anil Kumar Rawat Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation), wherein it has been observed that :-
"We had restrained the arrest on the continued assurance of cooperation in investigation as the appellants had joined investigation and no need was ever felt to take them into custody. The position, in any case now, stands enunciated in the reportable order of this Court dated 16.08.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 838 of 2021 titled "Siddharth Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another", that a person need not be produced in custody on charge-sheet being filed.
In view of the aforesaid, in the event of arrest, the appellants be admitted to bail on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Criminal appeals stand disposed of."
Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that present applicant is the co-accused of the said case and stands on the same footing.
In view of the aforesaid order, in case the applicant is arrested, he be released on bail on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court.
In view of the above, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of."
Bhupender Sharma filed Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 1202 of 2022 (Bhupender Sharma vs. State of U.P. & Another) before this Court which was disposed of vide order 11.5.2022 by a co-ordinate Bench. The order is quoted hereinbelow :
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, Shri Gyan Prakash, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the CBI.
Learned counsel for the applicant has filed an order dated 04.05.2022 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court today in Court, which is taken on record and shall form part of this anticipatory bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicant has brought on record an order dated 04.05.2022 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 731 of 2022 (Anil Kumar Rawat Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation), wherein it has been observed that :-
"We had restrained the arrest on the continued assurance of cooperation in investigation as the appellants had joined investigation and no need was ever felt to take them into custody. The position, in any case now, stands enunciated in the reportable order of this Court dated 16.08.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 838 of 2021 titled "Siddharth Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another", that a person need not be produced in custody on charge-sheet being filed.
In view of the aforesaid, in the event of arrest, the appellants be admitted to bail on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Criminal appeals stand disposed of."
Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that present applicant is the co-accused of the said case and stands on the same footing.
In view of the aforesaid order, in case the applicant is arrested, he be released on bail on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court.
In view of the above, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of."
Amit Kumar Sharma filed Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 3648 of 2022 (Amit Kumar Sharma vs. State of U.P. & Another) before this Court which was disposed of vide order 13.5.2022. The order is quoted hereinbelow :
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Shri Gyan Prakash, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the CBI.
Learned counsel for the applicant has filed an order dated 04.05.2022 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court today in Court, which is taken on record and shall form part of this anticipatory bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicant has brought on record an order dated 04.05.2022 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 731 of 2022 (Anil Kumar Rawat Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation), wherein it has been observed that :-
"We had restrained the arrest on the continued assurance of cooperation in investigation as the appellants had joined investigation and no need was ever felt to take them into custody. The position, in any case now, stands enunciated in the reportable order of this Court dated 16.08.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 838 of 2021 titled "Siddharth Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another", that a person need not be produced in custody on charge-sheet being filed.
In view of the aforesaid, in the event of arrest, the appellants be admitted to bail on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Criminal appeals stand disposed of."
Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that present applicant is the co-accused of the said case and stands on the same footing.
In view of the aforesaid order, in case the applicant is arrested, he be released on bail on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court.
This anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of."
Navneet Singh filed Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 2668 of 2022 (Navneet Singh vs. State of U.P. & Another) before this Court which was disposed of vide order 16.5.2022 by a co-ordinate Bench. The order is quoted hereinbelow :
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, Shri Gyan Prakash, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the CBI.
Learned counsel for the applicant has filed an order dated 04.05.2022 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court today in Court, which is taken on record and shall form part of this anticipatory bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicant has brought on record an order dated 04.05.2022 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 731-733 of 2022 (Anil Kumar Rawat Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation), wherein it has been observed that :-
"We had restrained the arrest on the continued assurance of cooperation in investigation as the appellants had joined investigation and no need was ever felt to take them into custody. The position, in any case now, stands enunciated in the reportable order of this Court dated 16.08.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 838 of 2021 titled "Siddharth Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another", that a person need not be produced in custody on charge-sheet being filed.
In view of the aforesaid, in the event of arrest, the appellants be admitted to bail on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Criminal appeals stand disposed of."
Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that present applicant is the co-accused of the said case and his case stands on the same footing as that of the co-accused.
In view of the aforesaid order, in case the applicant is arrested, he be released on bail on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court.
In view of the above, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of."
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the orders passed by the Apex Court and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Anticipatory Bail Applications of the co-accused, I find it to be a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Let the applicant - Gurpreet Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties (one of the sureties to be family member) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
1. The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
2. The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
3. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
4. The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.'
5. The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.
The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
The bail application is allowed.
(Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 29.7.2022 nd